Bioethicists can play a legitimate role in practical bioethical debate. This role derives from the advantages of the division of intellectual labour. Bioethicists may not have privileged access to any distinctive set of ethical facts. Yet they may have genuine expert knowledge of theoretical assumptions and priorities embedded in moral judgements, expert mastery of theoretical distinctions between ethical positions, and detailed knowledge of the difficulties with which all ethical positions are faced. Either form of expertise can make a benign difference in the real world.
Nothing I have said precludes bioethicists from making a contribution to biethical [sic] debate beyond giving a philosophical perspective on the issues. Just as biologists, doctors, lawyers and politicians are not barred by their field of expertise from expressing their opinion about what is morally right and working to implement them within actual institutional contexts, bioethicists are not barred by their field of expertise from expressing their opinion about what is morally right and working to implement them in actual institutional contexts. The potential contribution of any given expert in ethical decision-making is not exhausted by that expert’s domain of expertise.
(Hallvard Lillehammer, "Who Needs Bioethicists?" Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 35 [March 2004]: 131-44, at 143 [footnote omitted])
Note from KBJ: Lillehammer says that "bioethicists are not barred by their field of expertise from expressing their opinion about what is morally right and working to implement them in actual institutional contexts." It sounds as though he is advocating a fallacious appeal to authority. He has said that bioethicists have no "privileged access to any distinctive set of ethical facts." Why, then, should their opinions be given more weight than the opinions of randomly selected people off the street? Does the fact that they are already "inside" the institution somehow give their opinions more weight? Surely that's irrelevant. I was thinking of using this essay in my upcoming Biomedical Ethics course, but this gaffe by the author did him in.
