I have published some time ago in the Journal of medical ethics a piece in which I decry the ongoing abuse of academic bioethics content by sectarian agitprop outlets such as BioEdge in Down Under, First Things in the USA and so on and so forth. I was very clear that I disapprove of their activities.
Last night BioEdge distributed a fundraising appeal quoting me thus,
The editor of the journal Bioethics has acknowledged that BioEdge has "a larger real-world impact than most bioethics journals could dream of".
To be fair to BioEdge, one of my criticism of its website was that it pretends to be a bioethics news website, when really it is a religious campaign operation. In its fundraising appeal it notes that
Like everyone else, we do have a bias. We are trying to promote human dignity as a foundation for bioethics.
Credit where credit is due, at least folks more professionally involved with bioethics know that 'dignity' is a cover for a particular ideological conviction (while that conviction remains hidden under the cloak of 'human dignity', the term these days operates like a red flag warning of someone trying to sell you snake oil under this pleasing rhetorical cover).
This event reminds me of a book that I criticised harshly in a review in a leading medical journal. I ended it with a line suggesting that the book is 'well worth reading' because it shows so nicely how not to go about the matter at hand. BioEdge's use of my quote reminds me a bit of the book's publisher. It quoted the bit it found useful and left out the lengthy criticism that preceded it.
Ethical? Not so sure.
