PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9528189

[Ethics, bioethics and medical sciences].

Abstract

The aim of bioethics is to define a wise conduct for humans with regard to their environments, whether living or inanimate. However, owing to their diversity, bioethics can only deal with general problems such as biodiversity. Within the framework of bioethics as a whole, different sectorial bioethics must therefore exist to deal with problems specific to certain environments, for example the Oceans and Seas, the Forests. General bioethics and sectorial bioethics have an important contribution to make to medical sciences but official regulations should be proposed only after an attentive investigation has been made. For instance, the preservation of an apparently threatened biodiversity or the revival of a seriously damaged biodiversity must be the subject of a thorough preliminary scientific study and, if legislative decisions are taken, a very careful scientific control of their consequences must be carried out. One example is given: the decree on the protection of Larids and its impact, with regard to an abusive proliferation of certain gull populations having varied effects on public health. Sectorial bioethics can also have obvious consequences on medical sciences. Thus various harmful attacks on coral reefs (contrary to the concepts of thalassoethics) can lead to the death of corals and the appearance of ciguatera. Thalassoethics, by inciting pollution control, should help to improve the conditions of thalassotherapy. Forest ethics, particularly concerning management, can reduce the greenhouse effect and its consequences on health, as well as protecting plant and animal species inhabiting the ecosystem and bringing new chemical bodies to inspire original pharmacological research. Thus the links between general or sectorial bioethics and medical sciences must always be very close.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Fontaine. 1997. [Ethics, bioethics and medical sciences].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9528189/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

High hopes and automatic escalators: a critique of some new arguments in bioethics.

Two protechnology arguments, the "hopeful principle" and the "automatic escalator", often used in bioethics, are identified and critically analysed in this paper. It is shown that the hopeful principle is closely related to the problematic precautionary principle, and the automatic escalator argument has close affinities to the often criticised empirical slippery slope argument. The hopeful principle is shown to be really hopeless as an argument, and automatic escalator arguments often lead nowhere when critically analysed. These arguments should therefore only be used with great caution.

Bioethics↗