What contributions have social science and the law made to the development of policy on bioethics?

A. Capron

Daedalus

Abstract:Despite both biomedicine's deep involvement with research and the law's renewed interest in pragmatism and empiricism, the policies that have been put in place to resolve bioethical issues are characterized by the absence of any evidence of effectiveness before (and usually even after) their adoption. After examining three ways the law relates to bioethics -- through seminal contributions to the field's content and analytic method, by defining the domain of bioethics to encompass public policy and not just clinical practice, and through the reciprocal interactions whereby the law (typically, legislation or regulation; sometimes, executive or judicial decisions) affects and is affected by bioethical issues -- the article turns to one bioethics area, decisionmaking at the end of life, where far-reaching policies have been adopted, unconstrained by the lack of social science research, in order to explicate why policymaking in bioethics has favored abstract principles over empirical findings. This situation is perhaps not surprising when policymaking is undertaken by courts (as has been true, for example, about the forgoing of life-sustaining treatment for permanently unconscious patients, and about physician assistance to terminally ill patients who want to commit suicide), but legislation authorizing the use of healthcare advance directives and requiring that they be brought to patients' attention has also been adopted nationally without evidence about the efficacy or appropriateness of one approach or another. Among the reasons are the constitutionalization of bioethics, the domination of political ideology on many bioethics issues, confusion over legislative facts, and the limited amount of data that social scientists have provided.