What does it mean to be human? And can science illuminate the answers?

Human dignity—is it a useful concept in bioethics, one that sheds important light on the whole range of bioethical issues, from embryo research and assisted reproduction, to biomedical enhancement, to care of the disabled and the dying? Or is it, on the contrary, a useless concept—at best a vague substitute for other, more precise notions, at worst a mere slogan that camouflages unconvincing arguments and unarticulated biases?

The latest example of what Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University and an Episcopalian, has called "the last acceptable prejudice" can be found in the May 28, 2008, issue of the New Republic. Steven Pinker, in an article ("The Stupidity of Dignity") ostensibly on the problems raised by taking into account human dignity when discussing bioethical questions, keeps returning to the insidious role that the Catholic Church has apparently played in stifling scientific research.

Description: For better or for worse, the media is a filter for understanding medicine.

This spring, the President's Council on Bioethics released a 555-page report, titled Human Dignity and Bioethics. The Council, created in 2001 by George W. Bush, is a panel of scholars charged with advising the president and exploring policy issues related to the ethics of biomedical innovation, including drugs that would enhance cognition, genetic manipulation of animals or humans, therapies that could extend the lifespan, and embryonic stem cells and so-called "therapeutic cloning" that could furnish replacements for diseased tissue and organs. Advances like these, if translated into freely undertaken treatments, could make millions of people better off and no one worse off. So what's not to like? The advances do not raise the traditional concerns of bioethics, which focuses on potential harm and coercion of patients or research subjects. What, then, are the ethical concerns that call for a presidential council?

Robotic agents with artificial intelligence may become empowered with moral reasoning and decision making capacities. Trumpeted by enthusiasts, dismissed by doubters, and feared by doomsayers, the implications of advancing machine intelligence should be thoroughly and honestly engaged.

This is not your typical blog. We have recruited scholars and public policy analysts from around the world to provide daily news and commentary on the implications of bioethical issues for women. We hope you’ll bookmark this page and let us know what you think: just click on the comment link at the bottom of each post to join the discussion. To sign up for the WBP newsletter, visit our homepage at www.womensbioethics.org.

Discussion of universal healthcare is nothing new for US politicians or among reform advocates, policy experts, or the general public. Physicians, however, have been minor voices in the discussion. Their relative silence has been detrimental both to the public and to physicians themselves. We pose 3 arguments as to why physicians should support universal access grounded in medicine's own self-interest, arguments that are largely ignored in the current debate. These are: (1) the need for paying patients, (2) the need for a sense of self-esteem rooted in professionalism rather than commercialism, and (3) the urgency to affirm a public purpose for medicine by promoting the nation's health through universal care.