Stephen Richards

Central to this essay is the understanding that varied communities may have an inherent and unrecognised culture of their own and this culture may be detrimental to their core. Bioethics constitutes one such community and is embedded in norms and values comprising its own culture. I use exclusion of religion or simply ‘irreligion’ as an example of a cultural element that may be established and so shape the culture of bioethics. Irreligious bioethics includes both overt religious preclusion and the more pervasive form of religious marginalisation. This norm is narrated into the culture of bioethics with justifications sustaining it. Irreligious bioethics is inadmissible as it claims illegitimate neutrality, is a misuse of expertise and results in a variety of harms. As bioethics is influential in society, those engaged should be critically reflective and aware of harmful cultural elements whilst also possessing the honesty, courage and capacity to change them.

The concept of futility in medicine refers to the incapability of an intervention to achieve its goal. Futility determinations form the basis for withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining interventions. Criticisms of attempted futility definitions relate to inconstant probability and value judgements concerning the goal pursued. This variability frustrates efforts to define futility. Language modifications and procedural approaches, both important ancillary measures, inherently lack the ability to resolve this difficulty. Beneath the notion of futility lie foundational factors whose revised understanding is required to advance a definition. These factors include autonomy, death and the goals of medicine. Reconsidering the essence and influence of foundational factors is necessary to move beyond a seemingly irresolvable problem. In this essay, I assert that defining futility is not pointless but rather possible, necessary and unavoidable. With this assertion, I respond to the criticisms of futility. These responses together with a corrective understanding of foundational factors lead to a definition of futility. This definition balances respect for patients’ autonomy whilst allowing for interventions that do not undermine the essence of medicine and integrity of those practising it. Defining futility is an exercise in necessity requiring renewed perceptual foundations.

This essay analyzes the morality of assisted dying. To do this, it is necessary to recognize that assisted dying is the outworking of a larger process. This process unavoidably begins with the key moral conception of human dignity. Emphasis upon individualism in society has caused a restructuring of the dignity concept, changing what is most highly valued. This altered concept of dignity gives rise to assisted dying, yet is morally flawed. This is because it is an understanding of dignity that minimizes people’s vulnerability, dismisses coercive forces that are brought into effect, encourages undue confidence in safeguards, and removes any sustained basis for respect of the individual. Autonomy, as the primary justification for assisted dying in contemporary society, is an abbreviated understanding of the restructured concept of dignity and therefore subject to the same criticisms. Assisted dying arises from a deficient and self-defeating foundation that mark it as immoral.