Empirical biomedical ethics is a research field that is both old and new. It builds on a long tradition of field exploration to ensure research questions remain relevant to concerned stakeholders, while also representing an emerging scholarly community working to structure its approaches and methodologies. Biomedical ethics is inherently plural, shaped by interdisciplinarity, diverse cultural backgrounds, national and local contexts, as well as various moral frameworks. Where philosophers and theologians first laid down conceptual and theoretical groundwork to address ethical concerns in medicine, the empirical turn in biomedical ethics saw the social and health sciences bring in their own perspectives and methods to ground ethical judgments in the realities of clinical experience, patient and family perspectives, and complex social contexts. Medical professionals themselves have started to train in and engage with the field. While it is sometimes thought to occupy too much space and resources within the medical humanities more generally, biomedical ethics is still seeking to find its unique place among the philosophy, history, geography or sociology of medicine or science. Its defining trait – its normativity – is both the source of its internal disarray and what unifies it, what sets it apart and what intertwines it deeply into other fields. 

 

As an emerging academic field and community, empirical biomedical ethics attempts to find coherence and to structure itself around one central question: how to bridge the gap between the descriptive and the normative, between what is – what people do, think, believe or value – and what ought to be. 

 

The first International Congress on Empirical Biomedical Ethics (ICEBE) aims to bring together researchers, medical professionals and other concerned stakeholders from diverse backgrounds. Our goal is to foster dialogue, share methodologies and build a cohesive community around the central challenge of bridging the descriptive and the normative. In order to do so, it proposes to focus on a theme that can be explored both from a methodological or from a content perspective: Explain, Justify, Defend. As an academic field, how does empirical biomedical ethics attempt to explain the relationship between facts and values? How does empirical data inform normative justifications? Can concerned stakeholders’ actual beliefs and ideals be used to defend normative judgements and, if so, to what extent? But also, for example, how do clinicians explain their decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment in intensive care units, and how do these explanations align with or diverge from the ethical principles and legal frameworks governing end-of-life care? How do healthcare professionals defend or justify the unequal distribution of emotional labour carried out by doctors, nurses or care assistants, and how does it relate to wider gender dynamics?

 

We invite you to join us on January 28th and 29th in Lausanne, Switzerland to explore these questions, share your work, and shape the future of empirical biomedical ethics. Together, we can advance our understanding of how to explain, justify, and defend ethical judgments in medicine.

Deadline: September 30th, 2026

Abstract word count:

Response: October 20th, 2026

 

Link to the submission page

1. Gender and Empirical Biomedical Ethics

This theme explores how gender issues and intersectional inequalities permeate healthcare practices, health policies and research methodologies, as well as the theoretical frameworks of empirical biomedical ethics itself. It aims to examine through field work the epistemic, institutional, systemic, sociocultural and (inter-)personal biases that shape the production of medical knowledge and the experiences of patients and healthcare professionals. At the crossroads between epistemology and ethics, this theme is an invitation to explore how these biases may be used to justify differentiated care (example of the “mediterranean syndrome”) and explain areas of produced ignorance, or to outline how gender studies or feminist bioethics may be integrated for more inclusive approaches in healthcare and medical research. This theme also pushes us to examine critically our own research practices and preexisting assumptions through an intersectional lens. Whose voices and which theoretical perspectives are being foregrounded and/or marginalised in empirical biomedical ethics? How do issues of epistemic and systemic inequality permeate patient partnerships and project funding structures? Contributions may focus on: feminist epistemology in relation to empirical biomedical ethics; issues of representativeness, and inclusion in participatory research, particularly drawing on the experiences of queer disabled, racialised, and marginalised communities; inequalities in access to care and resources; systemic issues in research funding; the examination of care work in professional and private contexts; the identification and analysis of gender biases in diagnosis, treatment, and care (for example, in pain management); etc.

 

2. Participatory Approaches

Participatory approaches are playing an increasingly important role in health research and biomedical ethics today. They are based on the idea that those concerned by research and clinical care—patients, family members, associations, communities, and professionals—must be able to contribute actively to the definition of research questions, the generation of data and the interpretation of results, shaping healthcare institutions and clinical care. This theme aims to examine the promises, limitations, and ethical implications of participatory approaches for empirical biomedical ethics, with a focus on how these approaches may be mobilised to explain phenomena from more diverse perspectives (experiential knowledge), be used as a perfunctory symbol or as justification and impetus for actual change, or help defend stronger forms of epistemic justice. Proposals may explore: the various forms of participation and co-construction of knowledge and normativity; issues of legitimacy, representativeness, and power-sharing; the role of industry collaborations and related power dynamics; the experiences of patient partners and affected communities; reimbursement structures in patient partnerships; (in)equality and ableism in the hierarchisation of patient partners; tensions between scientific expertise, lived experience, and lay knowledge; the ethical dimensions of collaboration in research; the bridge between partner and/or patient values and normative judgments in empirical biomedical ethics research, etc.

 

3. Methodological Approaches

Empirical biomedical ethics is characterised by the diversity of methods employed to integrate normative reflection within empirical inquiry. This theme aims to provide a forum for discussion on methodological choices, theoretical approaches and innovations, and epistemological challenges specific to the field: how can field work be mobilised to explain, justify or defend normative judgements? Contributions may address, in particular: the relationship between empirical data and normative analysis; deliberative methods and interdisciplinary approaches; narrative, ethnographic, or phenomenological approaches; participatory and co-creative methodologies; key differences and complementarities with the social sciences; the relationship with other empirical approaches in philosophy (such as empirical philosophy, experimental philosophy, or field philosophy), etc.

 

4. Decision-Making

Decision-making is a central aspect of healthcare practices, the therapeutic relationship, and health policies. This theme aims to examine the ethical, social, and cognitive dimensions of decision-making processes in biomedical contexts. Contributions may focus on: how healthcare professionals, patients, or family members explain, justify and defend their choices or preferences; the role of moral intuitions, emotions, and values in clinical decisions; processes of communication, negotiation, and deliberation; individual and collective responsibilities in health-related choices; the influence of institutional, economic, or technological constraints on decisions; etc.

 

5. Digitalisation and Transformations in Healthcare

The development of digital technologies is profoundly transforming medical practices, healthcare systems, and the ways in which biomedical knowledge is generated, shared, explained or justified. This theme aims to explore the ethical issues raised by the increasing digitalisation of healthcare and research. Proposals may address, in particular: artificial intelligence and algorithmic tools in healthcare; issues of bias, transparency, and explainability in digital technologies; justifications for the collection, sharing, and governance of health data; the effects of telemedicine and connected devices on the care relationship, on medical discourses and explanations; changes in the work of healthcare professionals; arguments surrounding issues of surveillance, confidentiality, and consent; inequalities in access to digital technologies and digital divides in healthcare; the impact of technologies on autonomy, responsibility, and decision-making; new forms of patient participation and engagement via digital platforms; etc.

• Brenda Bogaert (Institute for Humanities in Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne)
• Pr. Richard Huxtable (University of Bristol, Bristol Medical School (PHS), Director of the Centre for Ethics in Medicine)
• Pr. Jonathan Ives (University of Bristol, Bristol Medical School (PHS), Centre for Ethics in Medicine)
• Pr. Ralf Jox (Director of the Institute for Humanities in Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne)
• Agnes Kandlbinder (Institute for Humanities in Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne; University Research Priority Program: “Human Reproduction Reloaded”, University of Zurich)
• Cristina Murano (Department of Philosophy and Society, Faculty of Philosophy, University Complutense of Madrid)
• Sophie Püchel (Institute for Humanities in Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne)
• Morgane Romero (Université de Lausanne, Centre Interdisciplinaire de Recherches en Éthique (CIRE))
• Pr. Silke Schicktanz (Department of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine at the University Medical Center Göttingen)
• Julia Tinland (Aix-Marseille Université, SESSTIM, CaLIPSo)