Advertisement

Goals in Global Ethics Education

  • Volnei Garrafa
  • Thiago Rocha da Cunha
Chapter
Part of the Advancing Global Bioethics book series (AGBIO, volume 10)

Abstract

The teaching of global ethics can be developed from several points of view. The goals of this education should be to seek respect for plurality and construct a fairer, more equal and more supportive world. The reflections put forward in the present chapter are not only based on the theoretical foundations of ethics and bioethics, but also especially on the geopolitical locus of where the authors live and work, which is the southern hemisphere. The objective of using this artifice was to prevent local negative effects that an intendedly globalized project for teaching ethics might cause. The aim was also to indicate the conceptual bases and practices from which legitimate goals can be defined for this initiative, which can be applied for use in different parts of the world without unilaterality, interpositions, impositions or manipulations. Because of the difficulty in defining goals for teaching global ethics, the present analysis took the reference point of two real themes of the contemporary world: moral imperialism and the point of view of coloniality. Overcoming the distortions and inequities of moral imperialism that are now perceived in the relationships established among different individuals, cultures, countries and regions of the world, combined with coping with situations of coloniality – whether occasional or global – is part of a macro-ethical context that poses an obstacle to construction of non-discriminatory, equal and inclusive global ethics. Considering the barriers against construction of consensuses in this field, the present text proposes the use of education in global ethics as a tool that is applied for opposing situations of moral imperialism and coloniality. Finally, instead of proposing abstract goals that are set aprioristically, this chapter indicates the paradigm of corporeity as a universal marker for what should be sought morally (pleasure and health) and what should be avoided (pain and disease) in education programs regarding global ethics. Thus, this chapter provides a minimal axiological basis upon which it will be possible to establish goals, thereby avoiding educational practices in the field of ethics that will become yet another factual element serving the maintenance of unilateral and hegemonic interests and an unjust global order.

References

  1. Angell, M. 1988. Ethical imperialism? Ethics in international collaborative clinical research. The New England Journal of Medicine 319: 1081–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ———. 1997. The ethics of clinical research in the third world. The New England Journal of Medicine 337 (12): 847–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold, D.G., ed. 2014. The Ethics of Global Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2013. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Benatar, S. 1998. Imperialism, research ethics and global health. Journal of Medical Ethics 24: 221–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benatar, S.R. 2003. Improving global health: The need to think “outside the box”! Monash Bioethics Review 22 (2): 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benatar, S. 2011. In Global Health and Global Health Ethics, ed. G. Brock. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berlinguer, G. 2000. Bioetica quotidiana. Firenze: Giunti.Google Scholar
  9. Bobbio, N., N. Matteucci, and G. Pasquino. 2004. Dicionário de Política. Brasília: Editora Universidade de Brasília.Google Scholar
  10. Chadwick, R., and U. Schüklenk. 2004. Bioethical colonialism? [editorial]. Bioethics 18: iii–iiv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cunha, T.R. 2014. Critical bioethics, Global Health and the development agenda. Thesis, Unesco Cathedra in Bioethics, University of Brasília, Brazil.Google Scholar
  12. Cunha, T., and V. Garrafa. 2016. Vulnerability: A key principle for global bioethics? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 25 (2): 197–208.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S096318011500050X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cunha, T., and C. Lorenzo. 2014. Global bioethics from the perspective of critical bioethics. Revista Bioética 22 (1): 116–125.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1983-80422014000100013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dawson, A., and E. Garrard. 2006. In defense of moral imperialism: Four equal and universal prima facie principles. Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (4): 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engelhardt, H.T., ed. 2006. Global Bioethics: The Collapse of Consensus. Salem: M&M Scrivener Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fortes, P.A.C. 1998. Ética e saúde. São Paulo: EPU.Google Scholar
  17. Freire, P. 2001. Pedagogia da Autonomia. Paz e Terra: São Paulo.Google Scholar
  18. Garrafa, V. 1995. Dimensão da ética em saúde pública. São Paulo: Faculdade de Saúde Pública USP/Kellogg Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2000. Bioética fuerte: una perspectiva periférica a las teorías bioéticas tradicionales. In 3er Congreso de la Federación Latino-Americana y del Caribe de Instituciones de Bioética – FELAIBE. Panamá.Google Scholar
  20. Garrafa, V., and C. Lorenzo. 2008. Moral imperialism and multi-centric clinical trials in peripheral countries. Cadernos Saude Publica 24 (10): 2219–2226.  https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-311x2008001000003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garrafa, V., and C. Manchola. 2014. Bioethics: A tool for peacebuilding. Revista Colombiana de Bioética 9 (2): 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garrafa, V., and D. Porto. 2003. Intervention bioethics: A proposal for peripheral countries in a context of power and injustice. Bioethics 17 (5–6): 399–416.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8519.00356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garrafa, V., and M.M. Prado. 2001. Changes in the declaration of Helsinki: Economic fundamentalism, ethical imperialism and social control. Cad. Saúde Pública 17 (6): 1489–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garrafa, V., D. Diniz, and D.B. Guilhem. 1999. Bioethical language and its dialects and idiolects. Cadernos Saúde Pública 15 (Suppl. 1): 35–42.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X1999000500005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heinze, E.A. 2016. Global Violence: Ethical and Political Issues. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Hellmann, F., M. Verdi, S. Bruno, and S. Caponi. 2014. 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Helsinki: the double standard was introduced. Arch Med Res 45 (7): 600–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hellmann, F., V. Garrafa, B.R. Schlemper Junior, and S. Bittencourt. 2015. The Fogarty Training Program in low- and middle-income countries: international research ethics education or moral imperialism? Archives of Medical Research 46 (6): 515–516.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcmed.2015.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hellmann, F., V. Garrafa, B.R. Schlemper Junior, and S. Bittencourt. 2016. Moral Imperialism in NIH Fogarty Training Program and the continuing unethical trials in poor countries: a rejoinder. Archives of Medical Research 47 (1): 67–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holm, S. 1995. Not just autonomy: the principles of American biomedical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 21: 332–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Homedes, N., and A. Ugalde. 2016. Health and ethical consequences of outsourcing pivotal clinical trials to Latin America: A cross-sectional, descriptive study. PLoS ONE 11 (6): 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jonsen, A.R. 2003. The Birth of Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lurie, P., and S. Wolfe. 1997. Unethical trials of interventions to reduce perinatal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus in developing countries. The New England Journal of Medicine 337 (12): 853–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lysaught, M.T. 2009. Docile bodies: Transnational research ethics as biopolitics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34 (4): 384–408.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhp026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Macklin, R. 1998. Ethical relativism in a multicultural society. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mainetti, J.A. 2010. The Discourses of Bioethics in Latin America. In Ibero-American bioethics – History and perspectives, ed. L. Pessini, C. de Paul de Barchifontaine, and F. Stepke, 21–28. London/New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mignolo, W. 2003. Histórias locais/Projeto globais: colonialidade, saberes subalternos e pensamento liminar. Belo Horizonte: EdUFMG.Google Scholar
  37. Moellendorf, D., and H. Widdows. 2014. Global ethics: A short reflection on then and now. Journal of Global Ethics 10 (3): 319–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nascimento, W.F., and V. Garrafa. 2011. For a not colonized life: Dialogue between intervention bioethics and coloniality. Saúde Soc. São Paulo 20 (2): 287–299.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-12902011000200003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Piketty, T. 2013. Le capital aux XXIe. siécle. Paris: Éditions de Seuil.Google Scholar
  40. Pogge, T. 2008. World Poverty and Human Rights. 2nd ed. Cambrigde: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  41. Potter, V.R. 1971. Bioethics. Bridge to the future. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  42. ———. 1988. Global Bioethics: Building on the Leopold Legacy. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Potter, V.R., and L. Potter. 1995. Global bioethics: converting sustainable development to global survival. Medicine and Global Survival: M & GS 2 (3): 185–191.Google Scholar
  44. Quijano, A. 1992. Colonialidad y modernidad/racionalidad. In Los conquistados, Bonillo, H. (Comp.), 437–449. Bogotá: Tercer Mundo/Flacso.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 2000. Colonialidad del poder y clasificación social. Journal of World-Systems Research. Santa Cruz XI (2): 342–386. Special issue.Google Scholar
  46. Rendtorff, J.D., and P. Kemp. 2000. Basic Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw: Autonomy, Dignity, Integrity and Vulnerability. Barcelona: Institut Borja de Bioética.Google Scholar
  47. Resnik, D. 1998. The ethics of HIV research in developing nations. Bioethics 12: 286–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rivas-Muñoz, F., V. Garrafa, S.F. Feitosa, and W.F. Nascimento. 2015. Bioethics of intervention, inter-culturality and non-coloniality. Saúde Soc. São Paulo 24 (supl.1): 137–147.Google Scholar
  49. Schramm, F. 1996. Bioética – a terceira margem da Saúde. Brasília: Editora UnB.Google Scholar
  50. Segato, R.L. 2013. La crítica de la colonialidad en ocho ensayos y una antropología por demanda. Buenos Aires: Prometeo Libros.Google Scholar
  51. Singer, P. 2002. One World Now – The Ethics of Globalization. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Stone-Mediatore, S. 2011. A not-so-global ethics contradictions in U.S. global ethics education. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 18 (1): 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tealdi, J., ed. 2008. Diccionario Latinoamericano de Bioética. Bogotá: Unibiblos/Unesco.Google Scholar
  54. ten Have, H., ed. 2015. Bioethics Education in a Global Perspective. 1st ed. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  55. ———., ed. 2016. Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Unesco. 2005. Declaração Universal sobre Bioética e Direitos Humanos. Retrieved from http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/declaracao_univ_bioetica_dir_hum.pdf.
  57. Varmus, H., and D. Satcher. 1997. Ethical complexities conducting research in developing countries. New England Journal of Medicine 337: 1000–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vidal, S., ed. 2012. La Educación en Bioética en América Latina y el Caribe: experiencias realizadas y desafíos futuros. Montevideo: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002255/225533s.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Volnei Garrafa
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thiago Rocha da Cunha
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.UNESCO Cathedra in Bioethics - International Center for Bioethics and HumanitiesBrasíliaBrazil
  2. 2.University of Brasília (UnB)BrasíliaBrazil
  3. 3.Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná (PUC/PR)CuritibaBrazil
  4. 4.Center of Studies on Bioethics and Diplomacy in Health - FiocruzBrasíliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations