In Against Bioethics, Professor Baron argues that applied bioethics often causes harm that could be avoided through the application of a kind of decision analysis based on utilitarianism. Such analysis in terms of expected consequences is designed to yield the best outcomes. When some other method of decision making is used, such as one based on application of intuitive or deontological principles, we should not be surprised if the consequences are worse than could be achieved if we focused on consequences. Of course, it could turn out that we achieve the best outcomes by trying to do something else, but I argue that we have little reason to think so, if our consequentialist analysis is sufficiently careful.
Reviewed by: Dr. Margaret Byrne**
Against Bioethics is an exposition of how the field of bioethics could and should improve its methodology and approach in analysis of difficult ethical questions. The title does not reflect the actual goals of the book, as Dr. Baron is not against bioethics, but rather against bioethical analysis and debate as it is generally conducted. Bioethics, as is pointed out in this book, lacks a theoretical foundation that comes from a single coherent guiding principle;1 bioethics uses tradition and intuitive judgments as the basis of much "ethical analysis." Unfortunately, these judgments do not always lead to the best outcomes. Dr. Baron proposes and describes how bioethics could use utilitarian decision analysis as the basis for analyses in this wellwritten, engaging, and important book.
