Reflections on the Appointment of Dr. Edmund Pellegrino to the President's Council on Bioethics
by Richard M. Zaner, Tom L. Beauchamp
2005. The American Journal of Bioethics 5(6):W8

In November, 1970, I received a call from a Dr. Edmund D. Pellegrino. He began by asking, did I remember him from Erwin Straus’ conferences held in Lexington, Kentucky? I didn’t, and learned once again of the embarrassments of my pathetically meager memory. I have never forgotten that call, however, nor what he did for me since that cold night in Austin, Texas—yes, it can be very wintry in the Texas hill country. Ed’s message was straightforward: would I think about taking a position in the new medical center he was just starting at The State University of New York at Stony Brook? It goes without saying that I was truly stunned: which philosopher would actually choose to be among doctors, those (as I then thought of them) mechanics of the body?

Well, as can be readily surmised from that beginning, I quickly learned otherwise, and soon came to realize as well that this man, Ed Pellegrino, had already in the early 1960’s almost single-handedly managed to persuade a few academics and a few medical educators of the need for them to get together, to join him in what he then called, with amazing foresight, a “new Paideia.” There was, now as never before, a real chance for philosophy and medicine to come together in pursuit of that goal, spurred especially by the already remarkable events taking place almost daily in the world of medicine and biomedical research, and harsh questions raised by them. He was convinced, and managed to convince many, many others of the vital need for this union, and with a few of us in the early 1970’s set up the Institute for Human Values in Medicine—the single largest project funded by the NDEA. Through its means, educators in medical schools and centers across the nation were gradually apprised and persuaded of that need, and began setting up program after program, and bringing onto their faculties numerous philosophers and theologians in the hope of educating not only the world of medicine and health care more broadly but the public at large.

By 1981, he and those who joined in this significant new experiment in graduate education, practically every medical school in the country had initiated one or another type of program—from a mere handful in 1968 to a major movement by 1981! And, only a few years later, this movement had begun to spread even further, reaching, by the 1990’s, countless others countries.

I mention this remarkable development so as to highlight Dr. Pellegrino’s major role in it. And, to give an at least partial background for the announcement on September 7, 2005, of his appointment as the new chair of the President’s Council on Bioethics, effective at its next meeting. Pellegrino established and directed the Center for the Advanced Study of Ethics at Georgetown University and has been Director of its Center for Clinical Bioethics. He also served as John Carroll Professor of Medicine and Medical Humanities, and is currently Professor Emeritus of medicine and medical ethics at Georgetown’s Medical Center and a former president of Catholic University.

Through his major positions in medical education and his prolific scholarly activity spanning almost five decades in pursuit of his vision of that new Paideia, Dr. Pellegrino has doubtless been among the most influential in this field. He possesses a keen mind, marked passion for that vision, and a remarkable talent for administering such groups. All this seems to me imperative at a time as the Council continues to plumb the turbulent controversies over human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and other topics raised by rapid advances in biotechnology. His leadership will be significant; his ability to understand and respond constructively to criticism, moreover, are rarely matched. For myself, I applaud this appointment.

The appointment of Edmund Pellegrino as Chair of the President’s Council on Bioethics deserves support from all quarters of American bioethics. Ed is a trustworthy and diplomatic leader. His virtues are many, his vices few. He is free of self-importance (actually quite self-effacing) and wholly devoted to committees entrusted to his charge. No one in contemporary bioethics has equaled his contribution to the field over the past forty years, and few, if any, have been as important in setting and maintaining a culture of mutual respect and trust. He is perhaps best known for his views on the virtues of the physician and the ends of medicine, especially for his relentless pressing of the thesis that “In the real world of clinical medicine, there are no absolute moral principles except the injunction to act in the patient’s best interest” (Pellegrino and Thomasma, For the Patient’s Good, p. 46). His vast array of publications in medical ethics–exhibiting interests in bioethics broader than anyone I know in the field—can be viewed as an extended analysis and defense of this thesis.

As to the Council’s future, it is reasonably predictable how Pellegrino will and will not lead. It is unlikely that he will take orders from, or otherwise fall in line with, the preferences of the White House. Following authority in this manner is not his style, and indeed would violate his sense of integrity. Nor will he seize on either the White House or the media to advance causes. Similarly, despite a certain conservatism in matters ecclesiastical and political, including his strong commitment to Roman Catholic beliefs, he will not be an ideological presence on the Council. The highest among Ed’s most cherished values in academic life is the importance of argument in defense of a position, and he can be relied upon to insist on it.

Pellegrino will probably not, in upcoming months, escape criticism from significant voices in bioethics on grounds that he is unduly conservative or that he brings a religious viewpoint to public bioethics. I hope that members of the bioethics community will be both constrained and conscientious if they determine to serve up such criticism. Pellegrino has had a remarkable career as a fair-minded, even-handed, and often inspirational leader of institutions. Even more impressive, in my judgment, are his skills in one-on-one conversation. Those who find fault with Pellegrino’s leadership of the Council will do well to first address questions to him personally, rather than in a public forum. He is remarkably able at explaining his positions, meeting objections, and deflecting conflict. Moreover, he has a way of prevailing in the court of public opinion, and that history is likely to be repeated at the Council.

I have debated bioethics endlessly with Ed Pellegrino. As is no secret, he usually reaches very different conclusions than I do—so different that, in the current political environment of bioethics, the label “conservative” dogs him, much as “liberal” follows me. I would caution against structuring the world in this way, especially if the language implies a defect in Pellegrino. Ed is scrupulously fair in attempting to understand and react to an opponent’s positions. He will meet the issues head on, and he deserves the same respect from the bioethics community that I have always seen him accord to others. More than any intellectual adversary (possibly excepting Dan Clouser) who I have encountered in bioethics, Ed has influenced me to alter and refine my thinking on questions of method and the moral foundations of bioethics. In our public debates and private discussions, he has unfailingly been a welcoming, gracious, relaxed person–unassuming and nondefensive beyond normal expectations.

Whatever its source and inspiration, this is a superb appointment.