WIth a few exceptions and you know who you are: You people are all fucking idiots.
btw, what's the job of a bioeticist anyway?
You know all those silly little things like: rules regarding informed consent in medical intervention and research, how we treat human and animal research subjects, use of current medication as a control when researching new drugs instead of placebo, how doctors are supposed to treat you, what are better more ethical ways to deal with organ donation, your rights and freedoms at the end of your life and pretty much every other regulation regarding what might happen to you if you ever become a patient or research subject? Bioethicists wrote them.
They have the right to talk of whatever, but hell, do it discreetly, use words outside of the average idiot's 100-word vocabulary, place plenty of hypotetical nonsense and wrap it all in complex syntax to keep most ravaging idiots out.
They did, moron. They published it in a medical journal that lay-people never read. They have been the victims of shitty journalism, and people who (like some in this thread) do not understand what is being discussed or how argumentation in ethics works, but think they have a valid opinion.
Heck, skimming through it, the structure and language are incredibly imprecise and non-scientific
That is because it is philosophy.
I don't see the merit of the paper either; frankly these guys sound like real-life trolls and are now whining about how they are getting flamed.
This is how ethicists argue. They take up a devils advocate position, and then defend it from others who try to poke holes in it. They will attack another ethicists opinion by extending the logic the other guys use outside the original case and either reduce that logic to absurdity, or generate a counter-example by which the logic used by their opponent reaches a patently abhorrent conclusion, and they then proceed to defend that abhorrent conclusion when their opponent counter-argues.