Africa Focus Debates on Contemporary Contentious Biomedical Issues

Introduction

xiii Introduction This is a book about euthanasia, physician strikes, advertising in traditional medicine and the principle of beneficence, four of the widely discussed and most contentious issues in medical ethics. The book is intended for scholars and students of philosophy, anthropology, sociology and medicine and anyone else who is interested in issues of biomedicine. The concepts and definitions of euthanasia, strike, advertising and beneficence have been well documented in the literature, and scholars have provided a number of interpretations to the terms. When looking at different kind of theoretical debates on these biomedical issues held in several academic journals, it is striking how many articles especially from the western world, just arguing for or against any of the issues. Yet, while there is monumental literature on pro-arguments on the one hand and con-arguments on the other, there is patchy literature that examines the nexus between the preservation of medical professionalism through “liberal beliefs and/or practices” and the safeguard of human rights of the ordinary patients, third parties (in patientphysician relations) and the general public with regard to the aforementioned issues. At best, many academics seem to have conceived these constituencies of academic research as irreconcilable research spheres. There is, therefore, need for a more comprehensive research on euthanasia, physician strike, traditional medicine advertising and beneficence especially from Africa where research on these issues have not only been patchy, but very narrowly focused. The latter factor is also true of research by western scholars on these important topics wherein most are limited either to pro- or conarguments . xiv In light of this observation, this book conceives as its central argument the need to re-introduce, re-think and reproblematize the moral controversies surrounding euthanasia, physician strike, traditional medicine advertising and the principle of beneficence. This is proposed in an attempt to move beyond the traditional positions by either pro- or conarguments raised so far to create a more radical holistic and balanced approach that would further develop the field of medical ethics by taking greater account of factors such as liberal life-style, critical questioning, moral intensity and intention development. This is drawn on the realization that the intractable nature of the controversies surrounding the aforementioned issues has been stirred by the threshold question as to whether the issues are morally good or bad. It is in the face of such intellectual moral uneasiness that philosophical inquiry on euthanasia, physician strike, traditional medicine advertising and beneficence begins, hence the present book. It is acknowledged that the subjects of euthanasia, strike, advertising and beneficence are very broad and far reaching inquiries. In any case, there are a number of strategic hurdles to overcome. The first is that the approach advanced in this book- the liberal, pragmatic and critical questioning approach, of which the moderate view of euthanasia is a product-, is perceived to be foreign to both the African traditional worldview and western philosophy. As such, one may wonder how such a view can gain support in the face of the two warring positions -pro and con-euthanasia, for examplealready competing for an answer to the morality of the issues in question. The second concerns the different conceptions of life, its purpose and value the world-over. Is it possible to talk of euthanasia, physician strike, traditional medicine advertising and beneficence in sub-Saharan Africa and still xv make sense in the debate about the subjects at one hand, and to talk about the same subjects at a global scale on the other hand? The third problem pertains to the geographical epithet “sub-Saharan Africa”. Is it possible to develop a broad outline or rather a complete view of euthanasia, physician strike, traditional medicine advertising and beneficence from the perspective of a geographical area, a sub-continent – subSaharan Africa- which is only a part of Africa and the world? Wouldn’t the contextuality of such a perspective fly into the face of the assumed universality of the ideas of medical ethics, going against the grain of its intersubjective and therefore international use? Or wouldn’t this tantamount to lapsing into a kind of truncated conception of euthanasia, strike, advertising and beneficence leaving us with nothing but the narrow vision of local biases, interests and viewpoints? Furthermore, would such a perspective, if it can be circumscribed at all, do justice to a wide range of the lived social experiences of millions of people of Africa who themselves...