 |
 |
||
|
|
||
|
||
 |
|
VIEWPOINT: The Dilemma of Choice |
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Page 2 of 2 | ||
|
The answer could be that it may not be the function of bioethics at all
to help us decide surely and confidently in such cases. On the
contrary. To me, the agony expressed by the law lords in their decision
on Jodie and Mary demonstrates the central purpose of the true function
of the study of ethics.
To borrow from and paraphrase American philosopher John Rawls, bioethics is about reflective discourse, in which we try to arrive at what we consider to be the best humanly achievable decision in the circumstances, after taking into account what we want and should want for ourselves as human individuals, and as a civilised society. I think that it is wrong for people who disagree with the court's decision in Jodie and Mary's case to castigate it as being wrong and immoral: rather, one should simply say that the decision in that case does not accord with one's private judgements. So one of the most important goals of bioethics is to encourage individuals in a society to seek and focus on commonalities rather than differences in positions, and to recognise that private judgements ought not be confused with public responses. In the end, the verdict matters less for us as a society rather than the process by which it has been arrived at. Secular bioethics must start from the assumption that there are no humanly discoverable ultimate deductive truths. Applied to the case of Jodie and Mary, this means in effect that in a society based on a secular system of law and ethics, the question is not whether the court had arrived at the correct decision (for that assumes that there was one to be discovered in the first place), but whether the court has achieved the best humanly achievable result in light of the moral values that we hold as a society. And from my own private perspective, I believe they have. Assoc Prof Terry Kaan can be reached at: lawterry@nus.edu.sg |
||
|
|||
