Euphemistic bioethics

November 9, 2023

Introduction

The use of euphemisms in bioethics can influence public perception, altering and complicating the process of making informed ethical decisions. Honesty and precise communication are crucial to counteract this influence and promote transparent ethical discourse.

Author: Juan Manuel Palomares Cantero

Text

The title is somewhat unusual, isn't it? The word "euphemistic" may seem uncommon, and rightly so, as it is not found in conventional dictionaries. However, this title is deliberately chosen to address a critical concern in the field of bioethics. Bioethics, a discipline that emerges in response to scientific and technological advances in the fields of medicine and biotechnology in the 20th century, plays a fundamental role in making ethical decisions related to health and biomedical research. At its core, bioethics is concerned with human dignity, the common good, autonomy, justice, and individual and collective rights.

Nevertheless, a critical concern arises in this field: the manipulation of language through the use of euphemisms. Euphemisms are softened terms used to make ethically controversial concepts appear more acceptable. This can alter public perception and decision-making on bioethical issues.

For instance, terms like "voluntary interruption of pregnancy" instead of "abortion" illustrate how euphemisms can influence people's perception. This manipulation of language is not exclusive to bioethics, but its use here is particularly delicate due to the profound ethical implications of the decisions involved.

In this context, it is crucial to consider the "Overton Window," a concept that analyzes which ideas and policies are socially acceptable at a given time. The relationship between euphemisms and the Overton Window is fundamental to understanding how language can shape public perception of ethical issues.

Bioethics is a discipline that addresses ethical issues related to health, medicine, biomedical research, and biotechnology. Its central mission is to provide an ethical framework for decision-making in these fields, considering fundamental principles such as human dignity, autonomy, justice, and respect for individual and collective rights. In other words, bioethics becomes a moral compass guiding the development and application of scientific and technological advances for the benefit of humanity.

Euphemism:

Euphemisms have notably infiltrated the language of bioethics and are often used to soften ethically delicate terms or concepts. A paradigmatic example is the use of the term "voluntary interruption of pregnancy" instead of "abortion." This change in terminology seeks to reduce the emotional and ethical burden often associated with discussing abortion.

Other examples include the use of "dignified death" instead of "euthanasia" and "embryo selection" instead of "genetic embryo selection." These euphemisms may appear neutral or even positive but can mask the ethical complexity of underlying issues and ultimately influence public perception and decision-making.

Euphemisms, by softening ethically controversial terms and concepts, can significantly influence public perception of bioethical issues. Presenting these issues with softened language can alter the overall perception of the seriousness of the ethical dilemmas involved.

For example, by using "voluntary interruption of pregnancy" instead of "abortion," the discussion may seem less complex and more acceptable to certain sectors of society. This can impact how public policies are addressed and decisions are made regarding abortion.

In the field of bioethics, one of the prominent challenges relates to demographic changes taking place in contemporary society. The traditional population pyramid, characterized by a broad base of young population and a narrow top of elderly individuals, is undergoing significant inversion. There is an increasing number of older adults compared to the child population, largely due to successful birth control policies.

This inversion in the population pyramid poses significant economic and social challenges. As the population ages, the demand for healthcare and economic resources tends to increase, while the workforce decreases. This trend can create strains on social security systems and the economy in general, requiring more support and attention for an aging population.

In this context, public policy faces the need to consider measures favoring the reduction of the adult population. However, this task is highly sensitive and ethically complex. One of the measures discussed is "dignified death" instead of "euthanasia." This change in terminology aims to soften the public perception of end-of-life practices, making them seem more humane and acceptable.

The choice to use the term "dignified death" instead of "euthanasia" raises fundamental ethical questions. To what extent is it acceptable to use softened language to influence public perception on such delicate issues as end-of-life decision-making? How does this impact society's ability to maintain an open and transparent debate on these complex ethical issues?

Ultimately, it is essential to recognize that word choice and the use of euphemisms can have a significant impact on how end-of-life practices and other bioethical issues are perceived. As society faces the challenges of demographic change and decision-making in the fields of health and biotechnology, it is important to carefully consider how to address these issues transparently, ensuring that decisions are made both ethically and informatively.

The Overton Window in Bioethics:

The Overton Window, developed by Joseph P. Overton in the 1990s, is a political and social concept describing a range of ideas, opinions, and policies considered socially acceptable in a society at a given time. What makes this methodology unique is its ability to transform an initially unacceptable idea into something politically correct and widely supported by society. This range of acceptance evolves over time and is influenced by factors such as culture, education, and political trends. Ideas and policies falling outside this window are perceived as extreme or unacceptable at that moment.

Relationship Between Euphemism and Manipulation:

The relationship between the use of euphemisms in bioethics and the manipulation expressed in the Overton Window highlights how language can influence public perception and, ultimately, bioethics policies. Euphemisms soften ethically delicate terms, making previously unacceptable practices seem less extreme and facilitating their public and political acceptance. This expands the range of socially acceptable policies and shapes public opinion on certain bioethical issues. However, this language influence can hinder an open and comprehensive debate on these issues, obscuring their ethical complexity and limiting the ability to make informed decisions. Additionally, political leaders may be influenced by this public perception, significantly impacting legislation and regulation in the field of bioethics.

BIOETHICAL IMPLICATIONS:

The manipulation of language in bioethics raises significant ethical issues that deserve careful attention.

The use of euphemisms can undermine honesty and transparency in bioethical discussions. Ethics demands that the truth be presented clearly and without concealment. Language manipulation through euphemisms can distort reality and lead to an inaccurate representation of the underlying ethical dilemmas.

Autonomy is a fundamental principle in ethics and bioethics. When euphemisms are used to soften ethically delicate terms, there is a risk of compromising people's autonomy by influencing their perception of the available options. This goes against the respect for autonomy, as individuals cannot make informed decisions without a precise understanding of the ethical issues at stake.

Distorting language through euphemisms can make it challenging for people to make informed ethical decisions. If they do not fully understand the ethical implications of a decision, they are more likely to make decisions based on biased or incomplete information, contradicting the ethical principle of informed decision-making.

Public participation in bioethical debates is essential to ensure that policies reflect the values and concerns of society. However, when language is used to soften ethically controversial concepts, public participation may be hindered. People may not be fully aware of the gravity of an ethical issue and may not participate significantly in the debate.

To counteract the influence of euphemisms in bioethics and address the ethical implications, it is essential to promote transparency and precise communication.

Communication in bioethics must be clear and precise, using terms that accurately reflect the nature of the ethical dilemmas at hand. This allows people to fully understand the issues and make informed decisions.

Public education on bioethics plays a significant role in promoting understanding and informed participation. Society needs to be well-informed about ethical issues and how language can influence public perception.

Fostering an open and transparent ethical debate in society is important. This involves allowing all aspects of an ethical issue to be discussed and ensuring that all voices are heard, regardless of how delicate the topic may be.

Addressing the ethical implications of language manipulation in bioethics involves promoting honesty, transparency, and informed decision-making. Society must be equipped with accurate and understandable information to engage in meaningful bioethical debates and make informed ethical decisions.

Conclusions

It is essential to highlight the importance of language manipulation through the use of euphemisms in the field of bioethics and how this practice can have profound ethical and social implications.

1. Euphemisms have become a powerful tool to soften ethically delicate terms in bioethics. Examples like "voluntary interruption of pregnancy" instead of "abortion" illustrate how language can influence public perception of ethical issues.

2. The relationship between euphemisms and the Overton Window is crucial to understanding how language can shift the boundaries of what is considered socially acceptable at a given time. Euphemisms can expand the range of policies considered acceptable and ultimately influence the formulation of public policies in bioethics.

3. Language manipulation raises fundamental ethical issues, such as honesty, transparency, and respect for autonomy. The use of euphemisms can hinder informed ethical decision-making and impede public participation in significant bioethical debates.

4. To counteract the influence of euphemisms in bioethics, it is crucial to promote precise and transparent communication. The use of clear language and public education are key tools to ensure that ethical decisions are made in an informed manner. 

5. There is an urgent need for increased awareness of the use of euphemisms in bioethics. It is important to maintain clear and ethical language in bioethical discussions.

Bioethics plays a crucial role in ethical decision-making in the fields of health and biotechnology. However, language manipulation through euphemisms poses significant ethical challenges by influencing public perception and decision-making. Transparency and precise communication are fundamental to addressing these concerns and ensuring that bioethical decisions are made ethically and informed.

Juan Manuel Palomares Cantero is a lawyer, teacher, and Ph.D. in Bioethics from Anáhuac University, Mexico. He served as the Director of Human Capital, Director, and General Coordinator at the Faculty of Bioethics. Currently, he works as a researcher in the Academic Directorate of Integral Training at the same University. He is a member of the National Mexican Academy of Bioethics and the Latin American and Caribbean Federation of Bioethics Institutions.

The opinions shared in this blog are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and do not necessarily represent a unanimous opinion of the seminars, nor do they reflect an official position on the part of CADEBI. We value and encourage any comments, responses, or constructive criticism you may wish to share.

Versión en español