The Empty Promise

When Bioethics Prioritizes Procedure Over Principle

Form without content isn't just meaningless—it's dangerous.

Imagine this scenario: A hospital ethics committee gathers to discuss a critically ill patient's care. They meticulously follow protocol—forms are completed, consents are documented, procedures are checked off. Yet amid this flawless procedural performance, no one pauses to ask: What is actually best for this human being? This disturbing disconnect lies at the heart of a decades-old warning that remains startlingly relevant today.

The Birth of a Warning: Clements' Provocation

Key Flaws in Procedural Ethics
  1. The Neutrality Myth: Procedures inevitably embed values
  2. Avoidance of Responsibility: Focus on process avoids accountability
  3. Vulnerability to Power: Easily manipulated by those with power

Psychiatrist and ethicist Dr. Colleen D. Clements issued her groundbreaking critique at a pivotal moment. Bioethics was emerging as a distinct field, establishing institutional footholds through ethics committees, review boards, and policy frameworks. While acknowledging the necessity of structure, Clements recognized a profound danger: The rise of "procedural bioethics" threatened to replace moral substance with bureaucratic box-ticking 1 5 .

Clements targeted prominent thinkers like H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr., who explicitly advocated for bioethics as a neutral procedural framework rather than a system with substantive moral content. Engelhardt argued that in pluralistic societies, we could only agree on how to make decisions, not what decisions to make 5 .

Form vs. Substance: The Enduring Tension in Modern Practice

Clements' critique remains explosively relevant across contemporary bioethics:

Domain Procedural Focus (Form) Substance Needed Real-World Example
AI in Healthcare Transparency reports, Algorithmic impact assessments Mitigation of embedded bias, Equitable access AI-driven insurance denials disadvantaging rural communities 9
Research Ethics IRB checklists, Consent form templates Meaningful community engagement, Power sharing Historical exploitation (e.g., Tuskegee) requiring ongoing trust-building 4 9
Health Policy Public comment periods, Cost-benefit analyses Commitment to justice, Protection of the vulnerable Project 2025 proposals threatening to dismantle health equity safeguards 2
End-of-Life Care Legal forms for assisted dying, Capacity assessments Holistic support, Social determinants of suffering France's assisted suicide law vs. palliative care investment 6
Reproductive Tech Embryo storage consent forms, Laboratory protocols Moral status considerations, Societal impacts "Three-parent babies" (mitochondrial donation) without public consensus 7
The Hastings Center highlights Project 2025 as a critical example where procedural arguments ("reduce bureaucracy") mask substantive ethical regressions ("weaken protections for the vulnerable") 2 .

Case Study: When Procedural Ethics Fails the Vulnerable

The Diabetes Drug Trial Scenario
  • The Proposal: Phase III trial for new diabetes drug targeting low-income urban communities
  • Procedural "Success": IRB approval, proper consent forms, monitoring board established
  • Substantive Failure: Exploitation risk, benefit injustice, contextual harm ignored
  • Outcome: Perfect form, ethical substance absent - entrenches health inequities
Review Element Procedural Approach Substantive Approach
Participant Selection Clear inclusion/exclusion criteria? Fair burden/benefit distribution? Targets vulnerable groups appropriately?
Informed Consent Forms readable? Signed? True understanding? Free from coercive pressures?
Risk/Benefit Ratio Risks listed? Monitoring planned? Contextually appropriate? Meaningfully addresses needs?
Post-Trial Access Mentioned in consent form? Feasible, funded plan for continuing treatment?
Community Impact Not typically considered Addresses underlying health inequities?

The Scientist's Toolkit: Reagents for Ethical Substance

Thick Description

Captures context, lived experience, power dynamics beyond superficial facts. Understanding why a community distrusts medical research (e.g., legacy of Tuskegee) not just that distrust exists.

Anthropology Narrative Ethics
Bias Interrogation Frameworks

Systematically uncovers hidden assumptions in data, algorithms, protocols. Auditing training data for AI diagnostic tools to ensure representation across races, genders, socioeconomic statuses.

AI Ethics Feminist Bioethics
Stakeholder Power Analysis

Maps who holds influence, who is marginalized, and how decisions affect each. Ensuring community advisory boards for clinical trials have real power, not just token representation.

Public Health Ethics Participatory Research
Principles-Content Synthesis

Explicitly links abstract principles (Autonomy, Justice) to concrete demands. Translating "Justice" into specific requirements for post-trial access plans in resource-poor settings.

Principlism Applied Ethics

Reclaiming Substance: Pathways Forward for Bioethics

Bioethics must stop hiding behind procedural neutrality. It needs robust, debated foundations—whether based on human rights, capabilities approaches, religious traditions, or secular humanism. Yale's Foundations of Bioethics program emphasizes understanding ethical theory for a reason .

Bioethical analysis must explicitly ask: "Who holds power here? Who is vulnerable? How does this decision affect them?" Project 2025's potential impacts highlight this 2 . Procedures must be judged by how they protect the least powerful.

Ethics without implementation is philosophy, not bioethics. The NIH's principles only have meaning if actively enforced and monitored 4 . Did the consent process truly inform? Did the "independent review" substantively challenge?

Ethicists need courage to say, "The procedure was followed, but the outcome is unjust," and to demand change. This means challenging institutional priorities, funding streams, and political pressures. Clements called out the "specious label" of bioethics masking politics 5 .

Substance emerges from engaging with the realities of those affected. The CCTS Bioethics Forum highlighted involving community members in AI development 9 . Bioethics must move beyond conference rooms into communities.
Conclusion: Beyond the Bureaucratic Mirage

Colleen Clements' 1984 warning echoes louder than ever. As bioethics grapples with AI governance, genetic engineering, global health inequity, and political assaults on health protections, the allure of clean, neutral procedure remains strong. Yet form without content is not merely meaningless—it provides ethical cover for deeply harmful outcomes.

The path forward demands bioethics reclaim its soul. It requires moving beyond the bureau and its forms to engage with the messy, contentious, vital substance of what it means to protect human dignity and justice in a rapidly changing world. As Kant implied and Clements invoked, thoughts without content are empty 5 . Bioethics must have the courage to fill itself with meaning, even—especially—when it's hard.

References