The death of bioethics (As we once knew it)

Ruth Macklin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Fast forward 50 years into the future. A look back at what occurred in the field of bioethics since 2010 reveals that a conference in 2050 commemorated the death of bioethics. In a steady progression over the years, the field became increasingly fragmented and bureaucratized. Disagreement and dissension were rife, and this once flourishing, multidisciplinary field began to splinter in multiple ways. Prominent journals folded, one by one, and were replaced with specialized publications dealing with genethics, reproethics, nanoethics, and necroethics. Mainstream bioethics organizations also collapsed, giving way to new associations along disciplinary and sub-disciplinary lines. Physicians established their own journals, and specialty groups broke away from more general associations of medical ethics. Lawyers also split into three separate factions, and philosophers rejected all but the most rigorous, analytic articles into their newly established journal. Matters finally came to a head with global warming, the world-wide spread of malaria and dengue, and the cost of medical treatments out of reach for almost everyone. The result was the need to develop plans for strict rationing of medical care. At the same time, recognition emerged of the importance of the right to health and the need for global justice in health. By 2060, a spark of hope was ignited, opening the door to the resuscitation of bioethics and involvement of the global community.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)211-217
Number of pages7
JournalBioethics
Volume24
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2010

Fingerprint

Bioethics
bioethics
death
Hope
Global Warming
Medical Ethics
Lawyers
rationing
Dengue
faction
medical ethics
Social Justice
physician's care
health
Resuscitation
lawyer
Health Care Costs
medical care
Malaria
Publications

Keywords

  • Demise of bioethics
  • Future of bioethics
  • History of bioethics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Health(social science)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

The death of bioethics (As we once knew it). / Macklin, Ruth.

In: Bioethics, Vol. 24, No. 5, 06.2010, p. 211-217.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Macklin, Ruth. / The death of bioethics (As we once knew it). In: Bioethics. 2010 ; Vol. 24, No. 5. pp. 211-217.
@article{d865798fc2a940a4a052e65de6e27065,
title = "The death of bioethics (As we once knew it)",
abstract = "Fast forward 50 years into the future. A look back at what occurred in the field of bioethics since 2010 reveals that a conference in 2050 commemorated the death of bioethics. In a steady progression over the years, the field became increasingly fragmented and bureaucratized. Disagreement and dissension were rife, and this once flourishing, multidisciplinary field began to splinter in multiple ways. Prominent journals folded, one by one, and were replaced with specialized publications dealing with genethics, reproethics, nanoethics, and necroethics. Mainstream bioethics organizations also collapsed, giving way to new associations along disciplinary and sub-disciplinary lines. Physicians established their own journals, and specialty groups broke away from more general associations of medical ethics. Lawyers also split into three separate factions, and philosophers rejected all but the most rigorous, analytic articles into their newly established journal. Matters finally came to a head with global warming, the world-wide spread of malaria and dengue, and the cost of medical treatments out of reach for almost everyone. The result was the need to develop plans for strict rationing of medical care. At the same time, recognition emerged of the importance of the right to health and the need for global justice in health. By 2060, a spark of hope was ignited, opening the door to the resuscitation of bioethics and involvement of the global community.",
keywords = "Demise of bioethics, Future of bioethics, History of bioethics",
author = "Ruth Macklin",
year = "2010",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01808.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "211--217",
journal = "Bioethics",
issn = "0269-9702",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The death of bioethics (As we once knew it)

AU - Macklin, Ruth

PY - 2010/6

Y1 - 2010/6

N2 - Fast forward 50 years into the future. A look back at what occurred in the field of bioethics since 2010 reveals that a conference in 2050 commemorated the death of bioethics. In a steady progression over the years, the field became increasingly fragmented and bureaucratized. Disagreement and dissension were rife, and this once flourishing, multidisciplinary field began to splinter in multiple ways. Prominent journals folded, one by one, and were replaced with specialized publications dealing with genethics, reproethics, nanoethics, and necroethics. Mainstream bioethics organizations also collapsed, giving way to new associations along disciplinary and sub-disciplinary lines. Physicians established their own journals, and specialty groups broke away from more general associations of medical ethics. Lawyers also split into three separate factions, and philosophers rejected all but the most rigorous, analytic articles into their newly established journal. Matters finally came to a head with global warming, the world-wide spread of malaria and dengue, and the cost of medical treatments out of reach for almost everyone. The result was the need to develop plans for strict rationing of medical care. At the same time, recognition emerged of the importance of the right to health and the need for global justice in health. By 2060, a spark of hope was ignited, opening the door to the resuscitation of bioethics and involvement of the global community.

AB - Fast forward 50 years into the future. A look back at what occurred in the field of bioethics since 2010 reveals that a conference in 2050 commemorated the death of bioethics. In a steady progression over the years, the field became increasingly fragmented and bureaucratized. Disagreement and dissension were rife, and this once flourishing, multidisciplinary field began to splinter in multiple ways. Prominent journals folded, one by one, and were replaced with specialized publications dealing with genethics, reproethics, nanoethics, and necroethics. Mainstream bioethics organizations also collapsed, giving way to new associations along disciplinary and sub-disciplinary lines. Physicians established their own journals, and specialty groups broke away from more general associations of medical ethics. Lawyers also split into three separate factions, and philosophers rejected all but the most rigorous, analytic articles into their newly established journal. Matters finally came to a head with global warming, the world-wide spread of malaria and dengue, and the cost of medical treatments out of reach for almost everyone. The result was the need to develop plans for strict rationing of medical care. At the same time, recognition emerged of the importance of the right to health and the need for global justice in health. By 2060, a spark of hope was ignited, opening the door to the resuscitation of bioethics and involvement of the global community.

KW - Demise of bioethics

KW - Future of bioethics

KW - History of bioethics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77955149352&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77955149352&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01808.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01808.x

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 211

EP - 217

JO - Bioethics

JF - Bioethics

SN - 0269-9702

IS - 5

ER -