Archive for January, 2013|Monthly archive page

Jonathan Montgomery’s paper on ‘Public Ethics’ is published

In Public Ethics on January 11, 2013 at 5:32 pm

Jonathan Montgomery’s paper on the nature of ‘ public ethics’ has now been published in the Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics. Based on a presentation at a seminar on organ donation at the University of Keele, it reflects on the processes by which the Organ Donation Taskforce reached its conclusion not to propose a ‘presumed consent’ model for organ donation. It draws on the Jonathan’s experience as a member of that Taskforce and of other bodies charged with exploring ‘public ethics’, including the working party of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics on Public Health Ethics.

Jonathan argues that ‘public’ ethics is a much more contingent process than academic work and needs to (a) take into account contemporary policy debates, (b) be expressed in terms that are sufficiently close to the prevailing professional discourse to have a reasonable hope of reception, (c) assess how positions will be represented in the media and what behavioural changes will follow in the actual political context, (d) create workable compromise formulations, from which people can reason even if they reach them by different arguments.

Critiques of ‘public ethics’ need to take these features into account. He discusses the way in which a key concept in the Nuffield Council’s Public Health: Ethical Issues report, ‘stewardship’, has been examined and criticised by academics (including fellow HEAL member John Coggon in both his seminal book What Makes Health Public? and articles in the Journal of Medical Ethics and the Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly). Jonathan contends that the approach taken in the report is both explicable and defensible when seen as an exercise in public ethics, even though it may be more difficult to defend as an academic position. Criticism needs also to be sensitive to the fact that pronouncements on ‘public ethics’ are an exercise in persuasion whose audience is not academics. This may excuse the use of familiar but imperfect paradigms for analysis and a degree of compromise between committee members. It does not justify incoherent arguments.

Jonathan goes on to argue that there are some specific issues which present a greater challenge for ‘public ethics’ than for personal academic contributions. He suggests that greater attention must be paid to the difficulties for ‘public ethics’ of dealing with public opinion and seeks to explain how the Organ Donation Taskforce took into account public views it thought were based on flawed assumptions. He examines how bodies charged with considering ‘public ethics’ should address controversies where lay and professional understandings of what counts as evidence diverge. He also considers the implications of the contingencies of the socio-political contexts for ‘public ethics’ for analysis based on comparative work (both over time and between countries). This is a commonly used approach, but fraught with difficulties.