Observatory for Comparative Bioethics
Bioethics experts and scholars commonly agree with the premise that the challenges arising in one part of the world have the potential to affect the rest of humanity. In this respect, challenges for national health systems having a world-wide impact (as we witnessed it during the COVID-19 pandemic) do not constitute the sole threat. The spread of particular biomedical technologies and more complex biopolitical practices is also gaining global significance. Therefore, it is essential to examine the risks that arise in countries that claim a ‘distinctive path’ for developing bioethics and biotechnology.
The precedence of domestic regulations over international regulations in contemporary Russia and Belarus is increasingly interpreted as an opportunity to disregard even basic international ethical texts, such as the Declaration of Helsinki. Bioethical discussions are often absorbed or displaced by discourses on biosecurity, demographic policy, and technological competition with ‘unfriendly countries’. Public dialogue on bioethical issues has actually stopped due to threats to the career and freedom of potential participants and because the number of venues for such dialogue shrinks rapidly. In this situation, it is vital to preserve the international partnership, enabling comparative analysis at the benefit of all sides of dialog.
In today’s Russia and Belarus, women’s reproductive freedom, patients’ rights to confidentiality of their medical data, and the very possibility to safely seek medical care are in danger. The project of collecting the genetic material of citizens, of ethnic minorities particularly, and a requirement to remove legal barriers to human genome editing indicate the ambition to create new forms of biopolitics. Genetics and immunology have increasingly become a source of metaphors for administrative interventions into culture and education. In turn, new biopolitical strategies are supported with arguments based on an ideology of cultural and political exceptionalism that provides carte blanche to violate accepted international standards and practices.
In this circumstance, we - bioethicists, philosophers, and researchers in medical humanities - have decided to establish an Observatory for Comparative Bioethics to monitor, identify and analyze the causes, features, and potential consequences of the processes described above.
The precedence of domestic regulations over international regulations in contemporary Russia and Belarus is increasingly interpreted as an opportunity to disregard even basic international ethical texts, such as the Declaration of Helsinki. Bioethical discussions are often absorbed or displaced by discourses on biosecurity, demographic policy, and technological competition with ‘unfriendly countries’. Public dialogue on bioethical issues has actually stopped due to threats to the career and freedom of potential participants and because the number of venues for such dialogue shrinks rapidly. In this situation, it is vital to preserve the international partnership, enabling comparative analysis at the benefit of all sides of dialog.
In today’s Russia and Belarus, women’s reproductive freedom, patients’ rights to confidentiality of their medical data, and the very possibility to safely seek medical care are in danger. The project of collecting the genetic material of citizens, of ethnic minorities particularly, and a requirement to remove legal barriers to human genome editing indicate the ambition to create new forms of biopolitics. Genetics and immunology have increasingly become a source of metaphors for administrative interventions into culture and education. In turn, new biopolitical strategies are supported with arguments based on an ideology of cultural and political exceptionalism that provides carte blanche to violate accepted international standards and practices.
In this circumstance, we - bioethicists, philosophers, and researchers in medical humanities - have decided to establish an Observatory for Comparative Bioethics to monitor, identify and analyze the causes, features, and potential consequences of the processes described above.
Bioethical discussions are akin to democracy in vitro. We hope that the open and transparent work of our Observatory will serve as one of the cornerstones of the development of civil society in the future of Russia and Belarus.
The main objective of our work is to provide an independent analysis of the ethical and legal regulation of medicine, healthcare, biotechnology and biopolitical practices that involve both human and non-human beings.
The main objective of our work is to provide an independent analysis of the ethical and legal regulation of medicine, healthcare, biotechnology and biopolitical practices that involve both human and non-human beings.
- Analysis of recently adopted and drafted Russian and Belarusian ethical and legal regulation of health care, biotechnology, and environmental management from the perspective of their compliance with international bioethical norms; their comparison with trends in the development of bioethics in various countries.
- Collection of, and open discussion on, of Russian and Belarusian bioethical cases.
- Analysis of the trends and emerging modes of biopolitics and biosociality; assessment of associated regional and global, social and humanitarian risks.
The Observatory is an international group of experts in bioethics, health care, medical law, philosophical anthropology and medical humanities, which conducts a systematic comparative analysis of the ethical and legal regulation of medicine, health care, biopolitical practices that involves both humans and non-humans.
The main deliverables resulting from the Observatory’s work will be:
The main deliverables resulting from the Observatory’s work will be:
- analytical reports and recommendations,
- scholarly articles and monographs,
- publications in media (including social media),
- academic round tables, seminars and public discussions.
Preamble
Aims and Scope
Key Areas of Research
Format
[1] Ten Have, H. (2022). The challenges of global bioethics. Global Bioethics 33(1), 41-44.
[5] Paul Rabinow a proposé d’appeler cette forme émergente “biosocialité”. Rabinow, P. (1992). Artificiality and enlightenment: from sociobiology to biosociality. In The Ethics of Biotechnology (pp. 101-122). Routledge.
[7] Hyun, I. (2017). Bioethics: Democracy in vitro. Nature 541, 462–463.
Members: Alexey Zhavoronkov, Volha Davydzik, Nadzeya Ilyushenka, Anna Ozhiganova
23 June [past event]
Reproductive Coercion and Biopolitical Control: Russian and Belarusian Cases and Trends
Women’s reproductive rights in Russia and Belarus are systematically violated. The origins of this problem can be traced back to the dehumanizing practices and paternalistic tradition of Soviet maternal health care. A legacy of the Soviet system is the high level of obstetric aggression and the medicalization of pregnancy and childbirth, the restriction of women’s right to partner birth, and the criminalization of alternative midwifery. At present, an accelerating demographic crisis and the revival of the traditionalist rhetoric of “keeping the family strong” provide justification for oppressing abortion rights.
At the same time, (pseudo)conservative rhetoric often masks the problem of forced abortion. Gynecologists and psychiatrists repeatedly promote abortion among women with psychiatric diagnoses in order to avoid ‘transmitting the disease to their offspring’. In some cases, pregnant women in psychiatric hospitals are physically abused to induce a miscarriage. In Belarus, the current political situation has made it virtually impossible to monitor cases of violations of women's reproductive rights, including those held in closed security institutions (hospitals, maternity hospitals, neuropsychiatric dispensaries, and prisons).
Our goal is to draw attention to both sides of reproductive coercion – pregnancy promoting (including the use of Assisted Reproductive Technologies) and pregnancy avoiding - in relation to the violence and control produced by society and the state. Our main presentation will highlight the situation in Russia and Belarus. We kindly invite all participants to take part in the discussion following the main presentation, either (1) by giving their feedback on Russia and Belarus or (2) by making a comparison to other countries. The discussion will touch upon the following questions:
- What is the impact of domestic violence on reproductive coercion?
- How do the neoliberal logic of ‘bio-responsible parenthood’ and the statist biopolitical control coexist and influence each other?
- Do pro-life/pro-choice social movements and academic debates somehow shape this coexistence?
- What tactics do women use to avoid biopolitical control?
- What are the mechanisms of silencing violations of reproductive rights?
Authors of the main presentation:
- Sergei Shevchenko - Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory (Belgrade, Serbia)
- Volha Davydzik - DFG Research training group Cultures of Critique at Leuphana University (Lüneburg, Germany)
- Anna Ozhiganova - DFG Research Center for Advanced Studies “Alternative Rationalities and Esoteric Practices in Global Perspective,” Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg (Germany)
- Olga Vinogradova - The Institute for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Basel (IBMB), project: “Decision making in times of scarce resources: A mixed-method study” (Basel, Switzerland).
- Nadzeya Iliushenka - PhD student at European Humanities University (Vilnius, Lithuania).
- Alexey Zhavoronkov - Institute of Philosophy, Goethe University Frankfurt (Germany).
For further information, please, contact: Sergei Shevchenko shevchenko_sergei@yahoo.com
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
No, we do not have a political agenda, or engage in political campaigning. The objectives of our professional, non-profit association are to assist our emigrated colleagues and to conduct joint research with scholars around the world.
As you can see from the list of the projects of our association, the scope of our research is quite broad: from historical studies that shed light on the origins of current events to interdisciplinary research in political philosophy and political theory, epistemology and sociology, bioethics and medical humanities, philosophy of science and many others.
There are no restrictions. We welcome the participation of colleagues from any country.
We conduct our activities in various languages, mainly French, Russian and English.
No, IPHI was created as an international association with the objective of cooperation between researchers from different countries. IPHI will carry out projects that touch on all areas of humanities and social sciences. The association brings together researchers from different countries. The main languages of IPHI research projects are French, Russian, English and German, but other languages are also possible.
No, it is not obligatory. Everyone is free to choose whether or not to make information about themselves public. However, for those planning to publish descriptions of their projects on our website, their name is required, as our projects are not anonymous.
We welcome participation in our events and projects and are always open to new proposals. At the same time, we do not oblige members to participate; it is their voluntary decision.
We will be delighted to hear from Ukrainian colleagues who wish to join our projects and events. We treasure the cooperation and the opportunity to look at topical issues from different angles.
We cooperate with colleagues in Russia. However, we do not publish information about them on our website to avoid exposing them to additional risks.
In the future, we will prepare separate pages in the respective languages for projects concerning Ukraine, Belarus and other countries.
Join the association
We welcome you to join the Independent Institute of Philosophy Association if you share our values of liberty, oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, are eager to promote the development of critical philosophical thought, and are open to international collaboration in the social sciences and humanities.
