In continuation of my recent deep dive into the nature of man, I just finished What It Means to be Human: The Case for the Body in Public Bioethics, by O. Carter Snead, Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. The thesis of the book is Snead’s opinion that the law and practices governing bioethics are in serious need of overhaul. As he states in the introduction, “In America, law and policy are made through often messy processes of discourse, deliberation, and democratic forms of decision-making. This entails grappling with contested matters of deep importance, including competing and divergent visions of how we should live and what we owe to one another. This is certainly the case for public bioethics–the governance of science, medicine, and biotechnology in the name of ethical goods”. And he believes that in our discourse, contending sides frequently invoke abstract principles or rely on premises that do not reflect the full complexity of lived reality. In short, this means for him that our policy is much more aligned with what he calls “expressive individualism” that presumes people to be autonomous, defined only by their capacity to choose, and not enough influenced by our encumbered relationships that he calls “embodied human nature”.
His book makes the case, almost a legal brief, for a new paradigm, one that better represents the gifts and challenges of being human. Through the insights of a range of thinkers, he proposes a vision of human identity and flourishing that supports those who are profoundly vulnerable and dependent. To show how this vision of embodied human nature would affect law and policy, he addresses three complex issues in bioethics: abortion, assisted reproductive technology, and end-of-life decisions in a way that is not right vs. left or secular vs. religious, but by presenting them in the context of recent debates in the pursuit of ethical goods.
This is a deeply philosophical and challenging book, but there is no doubt, as he makes clear, that we need a larger national conversation on the issues he raises, and his work here would be a great resource and outline for the agenda.
Just for the record, I oppose as a Roman Catholic and as a physician a ” larger national conversation” on abortion and end-of-life decisions aka euthanasia or assisted suicide. One party, the Democratic, already refuses to utter the word “God” from its national convention pulpit and insists on abortion as a putative “right”.
The time for conversation has passed when a small oligarchy, the Supremes, decide most substantive matters. Roe v. Wade, anyone? Some 60 million young Americans have been evicted and murdered since 1973 merely because of their residence, in a uterus.
The USA has been on a steadily progressive path since Woodrow Wilson 100 years ago. Eugenics, an excuse to murder, was big then. Abortion and euthanasia are morally unacceptable, being forms of murder today and always. But medical schools have now abandoned the Hippocratic Oath, some 2500 years old, because it is a vow to never do an abortion, inter alia.
One might study a bit of Natural Law, especially as taught by J. Budziszewski, a prof at UT-Austin in philosophy and government, who has written extensively on this. It is heavy going but extremely worthwhile. He began as an atheist, eventually became Catholic.
Jim: I do not understand your meaning in “in a way that is not right vs. left or secular vs. religious, but by presenting them in the context of recent debates in the pursuit of ethical goods.”
In pursuit of ethical goods? Are you going back to Aristotle? What meaning does that phrase have?
To what “recent debates” do you refer? I am unaware of any.
I am simply referring to the detailed arguments and writings on these three issues he presents in the book, much of it by way of the recent history of the relevant court cases.
I am forced to conclude you believe “ethical goods” are determined by judges in courts of law, not by debates between left v. right or secular v. religious.
If so, I disagree.
No I do not believe the ethical goods should be determined by the judiciary. They should be determined by the democratic process. Again, I am simply describing how the author has presented the arguments in his book. You should read it.