Bioethics has now become a burgeoning interdisciplinary field of scholarly investigation which has in the past decades migrated from bedside consultations to public policy debates and wider cultural and social consultations that privilege all discourse about everyday life issues. It has made exponential progress in addressing moral issues in science, technology and medicine in the world. In spite of this progress, core bioethics issues, approaches and values are still exclusively Western dominated and largely foreign to most African societies. Although medical (...) ethics has existed since the time of Hippocrates, in Africa, there is a noted sluggish growth and low prestige of ethics education as bioethics is not taught in most higher educational systems of learning, low understanding of its processes as researchers manifest a general lack of appreciation for bioethics and general ignorance characterize those involved in research about ethical practices. This is unfortunate, considering that various research that aim at finding solutions to the multiple problems affecting African societies and the need to address and assess these problems in ethical terms are of crucial importance to Africans. In this work, I argue that Africa lacks human, institutional, infrastructural capacities and a real African authenticity in bioethics. Additionally, African views on bioethics are neither sufficiently developed nor heard. Africans need to confront these current challenges of bioethics to their lives and communities and to develop African conceptions to incorporate African specificities and approaches. (shrink)

In this article, I consider the virtual absence of an African voice and perspective in global discourses of medical research ethics against the backdrop of the high burden of diseases and epidemics on the continent and the fact that the continent is actually the scene of numerous and sundry medical research studies. I consider some reasons for this state of affairs as well as how the situation might be redressed. Using examples from the HIV/AIDS and Ebola epidemics, I attempt to (...) show that the marginalization of Africa in medical research and medical research ethics is deliberate rather than accidental. It is causally related, in general terms, to a Eurocentric hegemony derived from colonialism and colonial indoctrination cum proselytization. I end by proposing seven theses for the critical reflection and appraisal of the reader. (shrink)

Disputes over brain death and euthanasia are used to illuminate the question whether there really is a Japanese way of thinking in bioethics. In Japanese thought, a person does not exist as an individual but as a member of the family, community or society. I describe these features of Japanese society as ‘mutual dependency’. In this society, an act is ‘good’ and ‘right’ when it is commonly done, and it is ‘bad’ and ‘wrong’ when nobody else does it. Thus, outsiders (...) to this ring of mutual dependency encounter ostracism. One feature of this society is a lack of open discussion which leads to the existence of multiple standards. This Japanese morality even prevails over written laws. In Japan, there is a public stance that euthanasia does not exist. On the other hand, there are certain decisions which have permitted euthanasia. Similarly, organ transplants were performed from brain dead donors, while that procedure was not accepted officially by the medical profession. In this situation, there is a danger that human rights will be neglected. So far bioethical approaches have not helped to work out these problems. This may be because Japanese think that bioethics is subordinate to morality. The current dispute over brain death involves a struggle for the establishment of a rational society in Japan. Overcoming mutual dependency and ostracism is essential to resolve this struggle and to lead Japan into a society of mutual respect where all individuals, families and communities are esteemed. (shrink)

I argue for the universality of morality as against and in spite of the plurality and inevitable relativity of human cultures. Univer.

In this paper I have attempted to open a window on an African approach to Bioethics — that of the Nso' of the Bamenda Highlands of Kamerun — from the vantage position of someone who has familiarity with both African and Western cultures. Because of its scientific-cum-technological sophistication and its proselytising character, Western culture, as well as Western systems of thought and practice, have greatly affected and influenced other cultures, particularly African culture. But Western culture, systems of thought and practice, (...) have been highly impervious and immune to influences from other cultures, philosophies, systems of thought and practice, even where these might have been salutary and enriching to Western culture and systems. What I have here termed Nso' eco-bio-cummunitarianism clearly indicates a viable alternative world-view within which some of the bioethical perplexities and controversies of today might be more satisfactorily resolved than within a Western framework. I have further attempted to show, by way of example, how within such a world-view, abortion and suicide, for instance, would be disapproved of while euthanasia, in its etymological purity, is approved of. (shrink)

In this paper I have attempted to open a window on an African approach to Bioethics — that of the Nso' of the Bamenda Highlands of Kamerun — from the vantage position of someone who has familiarity with both African and Western cultures. Because of its scientific‐cum‐technological sophistication and its proselytising character, Western culture, as well as Western systems of thought and practice, have greatly affected and influenced other cultures, particularly African culture. But Western culture, systems of thought and practice, (...) have been highly impervious and immune to influences from other cultures, philosophies, systems of thought and practice, even where these might have been salutary and enriching to Western culture and systems. What I have here termed Nso' eco‐bio‐cummunitarianism clearly indicates a viable alternative world‐view within which some of the bioethical perplexities and controversies of today might be more satisfactorily resolved than within a Western framework. I have further attempted to show, by way of example, how within such a world‐view, abortion and suicide, for instance, would be disapproved of while euthanasia, in its etymological purity, is approved of. (shrink)

ABSTRACT In this paper I argue for the universality of morality as against and in spite of the plurality and inevitable relativity of human cultures. Universalisability is the litmus test of moral authenticity whereas culture tends to impose an egocentric predicament. I argue equally for the equality of cultures qua cultures and of the importance of different cultural perspectives, given the limitations of each and every particular culture, in a balanced and wholesome appreciation of moral issues, particularly issues of cross‐cultural (...) relevance. I then try to anchor my reflections on a few topical ethical issues of cross‐cultural relevance which have been the subject of controversy in recent times. (shrink)

Disputes over brain death and euthanasia are used to illuminate the question whether there really is a Japanese way of thinking in bioethics. In Japanese thought, a person does not exist as an individual but as a member of the family, community or society. I describe these features of Japanese society as ‘mutual dependency’. In this society, an act is ‘good’ and ‘right’ when it is commonly done, and it is ‘bad’ and ‘wrong’ when nobody else does it. Thus, outsiders (...) to this ring of mutual dependency encounter ostracism. One feature of this society is a lack of open discussion which leads to the existence of multiple standards. This Japanese morality even prevails over written laws. In Japan, there is a public stance that euthanasia does not exist. On the other hand, there are certain decisions which have permitted euthanasia. Similarly, organ transplants were performed from brain dead donors, while that procedure was not accepted officially by the medical profession. In this situation, there is a danger that human rights will be neglected. So far bioethical approaches have not helped to work out these problems. This may be because Japanese think that bioethics is subordinate to morality. The current dispute over brain death involves a struggle for the establishment of a rational society in Japan. Overcoming mutual dependency and ostracism is essential to resolve this struggle and to lead Japan into a society of mutual respect where all individuals, families and communities are esteemed. (shrink)

The World Medical Association’s revised Declaration of Helsinki endorses the view that all trial participants in every country are entitled to the worldwide best standard of care. In this paper the authors show that this requirement has been rejected by every national and international committee that has examined this issue. They argue that the consensus view now holds that it is ethically permissible, in some circumstances, to provide research participants less than the worldwide best care. Finally, the authors show that (...) there is also consensus regarding the broad conditions under which this is acceptable. (shrink)

The dominant conceptions of moral status in the English-speaking literature are either holist or individualist, neither of which accounts well for widespread judgments that: animals and humans both have moral status that is of the same kind but different in degree; even a severely mentally incapacitated human being has a greater moral status than an animal with identical internal properties; and a newborn infant has a greater moral status than a mid-to-late stage foetus. Holists accord no moral status to any (...) of these beings, assigning it only to groups to which they belong, while individualists such as welfarists grant an equal moral status to humans and many animals, and Kantians accord no moral status either to animals or severely mentally incapacitated humans. I argue that an underexplored, modal-relational perspective does a better job of accounting for degrees of moral status. According to modal-relationalism, something has moral status insofar as it capable of having a certain causal or intensional connection with another being. I articulate a novel instance of modal-relationalism grounded in salient sub-Saharan moral views, roughly according to which the greater a being's capacity to be part of a communal relationship with us, the greater its moral status. I then demonstrate that this new, African-based theory entails and plausibly explains the above judgments, among others, in a unified way. (shrink)

The field of bioethics is replete with applications of moral theories such as utilitarianism and Kantianism. For a given dilemma, even if it is not clear how one of these western philosophical principles of right (and wrong) action would resolve it, one can identify many of the considerations that each would conclude is relevant. The field is, in contrast, largely unaware of an African account of what all right (and wrong) actions have in common and of the sorts of factors (...) that for it are germane to developing a sound response to a given bioethical problem. My aim is to help rectify this deficiency by first spelling out a moral theory grounded in the mores of many sub-Saharan peoples, and then applying it to some major bioethical issues, namely, the point of medical treatment, free and informed consent, standards of care and animal experimentation. For each of these four issues, I compare and contrast the implications of the African moral theory with utilitarianism and Kantianism, my overall purposes being to highlight respects in which the African moral theory is distinct and to demonstrate that the field should take it at least as seriously as it does the Western theories. (shrink)

A preliminary study aimed at investigating the potential impact of relationships on decision-making process and autonomy of women was conducted in Harare, Zimbabwe. The majority of women surveyed (87.6%) were prepared to consult their husbands, whereas only 46.6% said they would consult their relatives prior to participation in health research. Only 6.2% and 11.3% were prepared to keep their participation secret from their husbands their relatives, respectively. Overall, 58.6% were rated as autonomous, 22.5% partially autonomous, and 18.9% were rated as (...) not autonomous. Age, educational level, employment status, and marital status of respondents were significantly associated with autonomous decision-making process. (shrink)

Implementation of existing ethical guidelines for international collaborative medical and health research is still largely controversial in sub-Saharan Africa for two major reasons: One, they are seen as foreign and allegedly inconsistent with what has been described as an ‘African worldview’, hence, demand for their strict implementations reeks of ‘bioethical imperialism’. Two, they have other discernible inadequacies – lack of sufficient detail, apparent as well as real ambiguities, vagueness and contradictions. Similar charges exist(ed) in other non-Western societies. Consequently, these guidelines (...) have been correctly judged as an inadequate response to the complex and ever shifting dilemmas met by researchers and research regulators in the field. This paper proposes a framework for effective implementation of existing guidelines without much worry about bioethical imperialism and other inadequacies. This framework is proposed using an analogy of Legal Realism, specifically its key assertions on how, in reality, judicial systems operate using general legal rules to settle specific cases. Legal realists assert that in judicial decision-making, general legal rules do not totally dictate court decisions in specific cases. This analogy is used to coin a new term, ‘Bioethical Realism.’ The framework suggests that local Research Ethics Committees ought to be construed as analogues of judicial courts with the resulting implications. Consequently, just like legal rules are general rules that do not always dictate court decisions, similarly international bioethical guidelines are general ethical rules that should not always dictate local RECs’ decisions and such decisions (ought to) enjoy considerable immunity from outsiders. (shrink)

Implementation of existing ethical guidelines for international collaborative medical and health research is still largely controversial in sub-Saharan Africa for two major reasons: One, they are seen as foreign and allegedly inconsistent with what has been described as an ‘African worldview’, hence, demand for their strict implementations reeks of ‘bioethical imperialism’. Two, they have other discernible inadequacies – lack of sufficient detail, apparent as well as real ambiguities, vagueness and contradictions. Similar charges exist(ed) in other non-Western societies. Consequently, these guidelines (...) have been correctly judged as an inadequate response to the complex and ever shifting dilemmas met by researchers and research regulators in the field. This paper proposes a framework for effective implementation of existing guidelines without much worry about bioethical imperialism and other inadequacies. This framework is proposed using an analogy of Legal Realism, specifically its key assertions on how, in reality, judicial systems operate using general legal rules to settle specific cases. Legal realists assert that in judicial decision-making, general legal rules do not totally dictate court decisions in specific cases. This analogy is used to coin a new term, ‘Bioethical Realism.’ The framework suggests that local Research Ethics Committees ought to be construed as analogues of judicial courts with the resulting implications. Consequently, just like legal rules are general rules that do not always dictate court decisions, similarly international bioethical guidelines are general ethical rules that should not always dictate local RECs’ decisions and such decisions (ought to) enjoy considerable immunity from outsiders. (shrink)

Bioethics has now become a burgeoning interdisciplinary field of scholarly investigation which has in the past decades migrated from bedside consultations to public policy debates and wider cultural and social consultations that privilege all discourse about everyday life issues. It has made exponential progress in addressing moral issues in science, technology and medicine in the world. In spite of this progress, core bioethics issues, approaches and values are still exclusively Western dominated and largely foreign to most African societies. Although medical (...) ethics has existed since the time of Hippocrates, in Africa, there is a noted sluggish growth and low prestige of ethics education as bioethics is not taught in most higher educational systems of learning, low understanding of its processes as researchers manifest a general lack of appreciation for bioethics and general ignorance characterize those involved in research about ethical practices. This is unfortunate, considering that various research that aim at finding solutions to the multiple problems affecting African societies and the need to address and assess these problems in ethical terms are of crucial importance to Africans. In this work, I argue that Africa lacks human, institutional, infrastructural capacities and a real African authenticity in bioethics. Additionally, African views on bioethics are neither sufficiently developed nor heard. Africans need to confront these current challenges of bioethics to their lives and communities and to develop African conceptions to incorporate African specificities and approaches. (shrink)

The central ideas in this work are health as a moral entitlement and equity in health. It is a discourse on distributive justice in health and takes Uganda as a case study. It describes Uganda health system especially the extent and distribution of health-related injustice brought about by severe poverty and the manner health resources are raised and allocated. This manner disproportionately adversely affects the poor's access to health services and endangers their livelihoods due to catastrophic health expenditure. This work (...) further critically reviews the theory of utilitarianism which is popularly used in the allocation of scarce health resources. Utilitarianism is accepted as good for ensuring efficiency in health resource allocation, but not good enough to ensure equity in health. This being the case a discussion of other ethical principles of health resource allocation that attempt to close the 'fairness gap' left by the theory of utilitarianism becomes necessary. Having critically examined QALYs and other moral principles, it emerges that a discourse on these per se is good but not good enough to guarantee equity in health in Uganda, even if a harmony between these suggestions were found. The main reason for this is that the said discourse is based on a subtle, yet wrong assumption, that all health services in Uganda are financed by the state and therefore health equity would be achieved if those resources are equitably distributed. This assumption ignores the fact that due to severe poverty and a very steep social gradient, out-of-pocket payment for health services is a prohibitive factor in the use of private health services. This leads to unequal access to health services between social classes since 50% of health out-put is from the private health service providers, hence must be paid for. This points to the fact that there is a strong spiral cause relationship between poverty and health inequity, the fact that is ignored in the discourse on QALYs and other allocation principles that aim at health equity. Therefore, since the poor are disproportionately adversely affected in the current system, developing an equitable financing mechanism for the health care system which takes into consideration the special needs of the poor should be a key priority in Uganda. (shrink)