Skip to main content

Staff Profile

Mx Jan Deckers

Health Care Ethics and Law

  • Email: [email protected]
  • Telephone: +44 (0) 191 208 3340
  • Address: School of Medicine
    Faculty of Medical Sciences
    Framlington Place
    Newcastle University
    NE2 4HH
Background

Welcome

Jan Deckers is the chair of the Faculty of Medical Sciences Research Ethics Committee and a member of University Council. He teaches and researches ethics and law, mainly in the School of Medicine and the School of Biomedical, Nutritional and Sports Sciences at Newcastle University. He is also in the interdisciplinary steering group of the Newcastle Medical Humanities Network.


His moral theory revolves around the promotion of well-being/health and his main areas of expertise lie in the ethical and legal issues related to:

· research

· global health impacts

· pandemic flu prevention 

· the human use of other animals

·  human embryo research

·  human reproduction

·  health impacts of climate change

·  the provision of feedback

·  artificial intelligence (AI)

·  leadership

·  naturalness

·  genetic engineering

·  factors that influence inequalities in health

·  deliberative reasoning


Jan is a Jiscmail list owner for mailing lists on 'animal ethics' and on 'publication ethics'. The former aims to develop the field of animal ethics and the latter aims to develop a forum to discuss publishing ethics. Feel free to contact Jan for further information and/or to subscribe.


Jan is editor-in-chief for a global health case studies series published by CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International), a not-for-profit intergovernmental organization, established by a United Nations treaty-level agreement. If you work in global health (ethics) and are interested in this work, feel free to contact Jan.


News

Jan will present a paper on 'Is veganism morally required to protect global health?' at the 2024 conference of the Schweitzer Institute at Peterhouse (University of Cambridge) on 22 November. See here for details.


Recent work has focused mainly on health care ethics, AI ethics, and animal ethics.

1. health care ethics

Jan has recently published 'Fundamentals of Critical Thinking in Health Care Ethics and Law' (Ghent: Owl Press). You can read some basic information about this book here.

2. AI ethics

Jan is currently involved in a project on AI, ethics, and health care, funded by the Great Britain Sasakawa Foundation. In May 2023, a conference was held at Chiba University. You can read the programme here. On 8 September 2023, a conference was organised at Newcastle University. You can read the programme here. You can watch a video recording of the event, prepared with great help provided by Callum Hounsell, here. With Francisco Lara, Jan has co-edited 'Ethics of Artificial Intelligence', published by Springer in 2024.

3. animal ethics

Thanks to a grant from the Wellcome Trust, digital versions of Jan's book ‘Animal (De)liberation. Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? London: Ubiquity Press, 2016’ can be read free of charge. The book argues that the consumption of animal products must be curtailed severely to reduce human health risks, including risks associated with pandemic flus, climate change, and other human health risks, conceived holistically. 

Several scholars have reviewed the book. This is one of them: http://www.ebibliotekos.com/2019/08/banning-meat-consumption-book-review-by.html

A reply to some reviews can be read in the Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.12807/full

Jan's experiences and reflections related to the COP26 meeting in Glasgow can be read here.


Broadcasts

- A conversation between Rebekah Humphreys and Jan Deckers was created for the 'Consortium of Environmental Philosophers', with funding provided by Newcastle University's Engagement and Place Fund and editorial help from Garry Mackenzie. You can watch this here. It covers animal ethics, and focuses particularly on the role of food in the climate crisis. It was recorded ahead of the COP 26 meeting.

- A 'cook-along' film featuring Hayley Tait and Jan Deckers was created for 'Plant-based Health Professionals UK', with funding provided by Newcastle University's Engagement and Place Fund and editorial help from Garry Mackenzie. You can watch this here. 

- The podcast of the Café Politique talk held on 4 December 2017 at Blackwells (Newcastle) is available here.

- The film 'Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?' was launched on 13 January 2017 at Northern Stage, Newcastle, as part of a series of screenings organised by Cinema Politica. It was released publicly on 9 November 2017. You can watch the film here.

- 'The morality of angling'. Contribution to the 2017 ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) Festival of Social Science. See here (introduction and menu) and here for Jan's thoughts on angling.

- 'The ethics of in-vitro flesh and enhanced animals': a conference on this theme, convened by Jan and funded by the Wellcome Trust, was held on 18-19 September 2014. The audio-visual materials were produced by Andy Fanning. The audio-visual recordings and powerpoint slides can be accessed here.

- 'An Introduction to the UK Vegan Project', presented at the Newcastle Animal Ethics and Sustainable Food Policy Conference. A Minding Animals International Pre-conference, Newcastle University. For slides and audio, see here.

- Talk on the ethics of consuming farmed animal products for BBC 3 Free Thinking Festival, 'Theory Slam' event in the Sage, Gateshead: A condensed version (2 mins) was broadcast on BBC Radio 3's Night Waves, 9 December 2010. It is available on BBC i-player from 38 mins 30 sec. in this programme. 


Peer review policy and Jan's list of journals

Jan takes an interest in publication ethics and in leadership ethics.

1: peer review policy in relation to (partly) open access journals (WOA)

Jan only reviews for journals that publish (partly) in open access mode if they adopt a 'Wide in Opening Access' (WOA) approach. This approach consists in peer-reviewed journals being prepared to publish all articles that survive scientific scrutiny through an appropriate peer-review process, regardless of the author's ability or willingness to pay. Ideally, papers submitted by those authors who cannot or will not pay should also be published as 'open access articles'. You can read more about WOA here. Please support this approach by publishing something like this statement on your website and let Jan know if you do so.

2: Jan's list of journals

Jan will not seek to publish in the following journals that publish work in ethics under current (date and name in brackets) editorship. Scholars who wish to add to the list are most welcome to get in touch. The criteria used for consideration are either of the following: the journal does not provide feedback within 8 months of submission; the journal does not provide specific feedback in the rejection letter (without being prompted afterwards). Examples of non-specific feedback are: we are unable to send reports; we are unable to provide feedback on this occasion; we only send out the most promising papers for review.

Current list:

Philosophy and Public Affairs (2018)

Journal of Applied Philosophy (2020; E. Brake)

Krisis. Journal for Contemporary Philosophy (2021; multiple editors)

International Journal of Wellbeing (2022; A. Jarden)


Qualifications

• BA's and MA's in Philosophy, Religious Studies, and Theology (Catholic University of Leuven, 1990-1997)

• Teacher Training Programme (Catholic University of Leuven, 1995)

• PhD (University of St Andrews, dissertation title: ‘The Scientific Basis for an Ecological Ethic in the Context of Process Thought’, 2001)

• Fellow, Higher Education Academy (2013)

• Senior Fellow, Higher Education Academy (2019)

Research

I. Research interests

To access Jan's articles, either click on the publications tab or read Jan's own versions of most of his publications, which are freely available via this link.

 

Jan welcomes enquiries from anyone who is interested in bioethics, including PhD students, particularly from scholars who wish to cooperate on any of his topics of expertise.

 

II. Current work

Public health ethics, law, and the consumption of animal products

The GHI (Global Health Impact) concept plays a pivotal role in Jan's bioethical theory. The GHI is a unit of measurement that evaluates the impacts of human actions on the health of all biological organisms. The theory is introduced in the article Negative 'GHIs', the Right to Health Protection, and Future Generations. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 2011, 8(2), 165-176. In this paper, Jan argues that the negative GHIs of many people who live today violate the right to health protection of future generations. Consequently, it is argued that many people must reduce their negative GHIs.


Facilitated by a grant from the Wellcome Trust, much of Jan's work focuses on evaluating the positive and negative GHIs associated with the human consumption of animal products, partly by comparing traditional with more novel animal products, including ‘lab-grown flesh’. The most extensive treatment is in the book ‘Animal (De)liberation. Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? London: Ubiquity Press, 2016’.

This article criticises the position of the Catholic magisterium on animal ethics: A Critique on Recent Catholic Magisterium’s Thinking on Animal Ethics. Dilemata 2022, 39, 33-49.

This chapter compares the negative and positive GHIs of people who consume animal products in different socio-ecological contexts, notably the Maasai and Scots: Deckers, J. Could Ecologically Sound Human Nutrition Include the Consumption of Animal Products?, in: Joan Sabate (ed). Environmental Nutrition. Connecting health and nutrition with sustainable diets. Academic Press, 2019, pp.229-242.

This article argues that (animal) ethics should focus much more on the role of feelings: The Place of Feelings in Animal Ethics. In: Noel Kavanagh, ed. Yearbook of the Irish Philosophical Society. Special Issue: Humans and Other Animals. Dublin: Irish Philosophical Society, 2018, pp.22-36.

Another chapter focuses in particular on the role played by novel technologies, including lab-grown flesh. See: Linnea Laestadius, Jan Deckers, and Stephanie Baran, Food crimes, harms, and carnist technologies. In: Allison Gray and Ronald Hinch (eds.). A handbook of food crime. Immoral and illegal practices in the food industry and what to do about them, Bristol: Policy Press, 2018, chapter 18.

Using the example of Australia, the negative GHIs of the farm animal sector in relation to obesity are examined in Obesity, Public Health, and the Consumption of Animal Products. Ethical Concerns and Political Solutions. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 2013, 10(1), 29-38.

The negative GHIs of the sector in relation to human hunger are explored in Does the consumption of farmed animal products cause human hunger?. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition 2011, 6(3), 353-377.

The negative GHIs of the sector in relation to human disease are examined in: Could some people be wronged by contracting swine flu? A case discussion on the links between the farm animal sector and human disease. Journal of Medical Ethics 2011, 37(6), 354-356.

The negative GHIs of the sector in relation to climate change and a range of other environmental issues are the subject of two further papers: Should the consumption of farmed animal products be restricted, and if so, by how much?. Food Policy 2010, 35 (6), 497-503; Justice, Negative GHIs, and the Consumption of Farmed Animal Products. Journal of Global Ethics 2011, 7(2), 205-216

The policy options that are available to curtail the negative GHIs associated with the consumption of farmed animal products are discussed in: What Policy Should Be Adopted to Curtail the Negative GHIs Associated with the Consumption of Farmed Animal Products?. Res Publica 2010, 16(1), 57-72.

 

The use of AI for moral enhancement

Work in this area has been developed through collaboration with Francisco Lara, Universidad de Granada. Some have suggested that genetic biotechnologies could and ought to be used to make human beings more moral. We consider that these proposals are problematic. However, we argue in this paper that the use of another new technology, AI, would be preferable to achieve this goal. Whilst several proposals have been made on how to use AI for moral enhancement, we present an alternative that we argue to be superior to other proposals that have been developed. For our proposal to develop a Socratic assistant for AIenhancement, see: Lara F, Deckers J. Artificial Intelligence as a Socratic Assistant for Moral Enhancement. Neuroethics 2019.

 

Naturalness

Jan's interest in the meaning and moral relevance of (un)naturalness resulted in an article that engages with this concept in relation to the debate on genetic engineering: Are scientists right and non-scientists wrong? Reflections on discussions of GM. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2005, 18(5), 451-478. A more developed theory of (un)naturalness was published as: On (Un)naturalness. Environmental Values 2021, 30(3), 297-318.In spite of the fact that the categories of the natural and the unnatural are blurred as no unnatural things are completely unnatural, Jan argues that we can meaningfully distinguish between different types of unnaturalness along the natural-unnatural spectrum, and distinguishes between three types of unnaturalness.


Teaching health care ethics

Jan has done some work analysing how ethics is being, could, and should be assessed. See: A Critical Analysis of Markers’ Feedback on Ethics Essays and a Proposal for Change. International Journal of Ethics Education 2019, 4(2), 183–192. A more recent article scrutinises the teaching of medical ethics in UK medical schools: A survey and critical analysis of the teaching of medical ethics in UK medical schools. International Journal of Ethics Education, in press.


The ethics and law of embryo research

The paper 'An Analysis of the Arguments Underpinning UK Embryonic Stem Cell Legislation on the Embryo’s Status' (Journal of Stem Cells 2007, 2 (1) 47-62) presents Jan's most comprehensive account on the debate on embryonic stem cell research. It engages directly, and comprehensively, with the arguments on the status of the embryo that have been used in UK Parliament and in the reports published by their chief advisors in the debate on embryonic stem cell research preceding the introduction of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2001. The article has been reprinted as a book chapter, and can be accessed here.

 

The ethics and law of abortion

A paper with the title 'The right to life and abortion legislation in England and Wales: A proposal for change' was published in Diametros (2010, 26, 1-22). It proposes amending the law on abortion in England and Wales.

 

The ethics of deliberation

In a project on 'Deliberating the Environment: Scientists and the Socially Excluded in Dialogue' (funded by ESRC Science in Society Programme; Project team: Derek Bell, Mary Brennan, Jan Deckers, Tim Gray, Nicola Thompson) we explored the potential of a novel institutional mechanism, the ‘deliberative exchange’, to facilitate mutual learning between two disparate social groups. We defined a ‘deliberative exchange’ as a one-to-one deliberation between two persons from different social groups facilitated by a researcher in which the participants work collaboratively to consider and address important ethical and policy issues. The participants were persons from low income households and academic scientists. Each participant participated in a series of deliberative exchanges in which he or she was invited to discuss different environmental issues. The project had two related aims. Firstly, to explore the potential of the deliberative exchange as a method for facilitating and studying mutual learning between individuals with different backgrounds and experience. Secondly, to study the process of deliberation between persons from low-income households and academic scientists and the effects that such deliberation has on the participants.

Participants’ views on genetic engineering are published in: https://eprint.ncl.ac.uk/70417

 

III. Postgraduate supervision

Jan has been the advisor (locally used terminology: 'supervisor') for several MA and PhD projects. If you are thinking about an exciting project in ethics or law, feel free to contact Jan.

Teaching

Undergraduate Teaching

MBBS: Ethics (e.g.: Ethics and Genetics, Common Ethical Issues, Impaired Newborn, Confidentiality, Truth Telling, Ethics of CPR, Autonomy at the End of Life, Unborn Human Life, Errors, Transplantation), Communication Skills, and other aspects of Personal and Professional Development (e.g.: Introduction to Communication Skills, Active listening, Critical Appraisal Skills, Gathering Information, Valuing Diversity, Critical Appraisal of Pharmaceutical Literature).

MPharm

CMB 1006: Practical Skills in Biomedical and Biomolecular Sciences

CMB 2000: Essential Biomedical Research Skills

BMS 3022: Bioethics

 

Postgraduate Teaching

MMB 8100: Research Skills and Principles for the Biosciences

HSC 8040: Health and Health Care Policy (for MSc in Public Health and Health Services Research and MSc in Social Science and Health Research students)

MCR 8001: Research Governance and Ethics

MSc Physician Associate Studies

MSc 8001 MSc in Clinical Science

ONC 8008: Ethical Dimensions of Cancer/Palliative Care

HSS 8010: Research Ethics in a Wider Context (Postgraduate and postdoctoral students at Universities of Newcastle, Northumbria, Durham, Teesside, and Sunderland)

Various workshops for postgraduate students: on 'Introduction to Bioethics' (Faculty of Medical Sciences Graduate School training programme); and on 'Personal and Professional Ethics' and 'Environmental Ethics' (Faculty of Science, Agriculture, and Engineering Graduate School; Postgraduate researcher development programme)

CPD Staff Development Unit: Ethics of Research and Research Supervision

 

Some pedagogic aids

The following list of questions has been developed to provide learning aids that might help those who wish to use some of Jan’s writings (available via the ‘Research’ tab) in educational contexts (tertiary and secondary education). Ideas have been organised around three themes:

 A. THE HUMAN CONSUMPTION OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS

Resource 1: Should the consumption of farmed animal products be restricted, and if so, by how much? Food Policy 2010, 35(6) 497-503:

1. What will be the relative share of greenhouse gas emissions from the farm animal sector if data are extrapolated from recent studies to the year 2050?
2. How could sustainability indicators help to address the moral question of whether the consumption of farmed animal products should be restricted?
3. Why might it not be sufficient to rely on sustainability indicators alone to address the question of this article?
4. How is the concept of ‘externality’ defined and what does a case study from the UK show about the externalities associated with the different diets that are compared?

Resource 2: What Policy Should Be Adopted to Curtail the Negative GHIs Associated with the Consumption of Farmed Animal Products? Res Publica 2010, 16(1), 57-72:

1. How is the concept of negative GHI defined? What is the benefit of having such a concept? 
2. Why might a total ban on the consumption of farmed animal products not be acceptable?
3. What are the benefits and the disadvantages of the option to raise the prices of farmed animal products?
4. What is your view about the argument for a qualified ban?

Resource 3: Vegetarianism, Sentimental or Ethical? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2009, 22(6), 573-597:

1. Why might some people think that vegetarians are sentimental?
2. Should there be a place for sentiments in ethics?
3. What might be good reasons to adopt vegetarianism in some situations? Why might some vegetarians be inconsistent?
4. Why might even vegan diets demand that some animals are killed in some situations?

B. EMBRYO RESEARCH AND ABORTION

Resource 1: An Analysis of the Arguments Underpinning UK Embryonic Stem Cell Legislation on the Embryo's Status. In: Koka, PS, ed. Stem Cell Research Progress. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2008, pp. 59-80:

1. What is the name of the report that helped to shape the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and what do you think of its claims?
2. Should young human embryos be used for research on the basis of the view that they may not be able to feel pain? 
3. Should young human embryos be granted moral status?
4. What are the eight arguments used by members of Parliament and their advisory bodies to justify extending embryo research around the turn of the century? Do you agree with them?

Resource 2: Are those who subscribe to the view that early embryos are persons irrational and inconsistent? A reply to Brock. Journal of Medical Ethics 2007, 33(2), 102-106:

1. Define moral absolutism, moral relativism, and Pyrrhonian moral scepticism?
2. Which of these positions do you favour, and why?
3. Are those who subscribe to ‘the F view’ irrational?
4. What are the arguments that have been developed to counter Brock’s claim that ‘the F view’ is inconsistent?

Resource 3: Why two arguments from probability fail and one argument from Thomson's analogy of the violinist succeeds in justifying embryo destruction in some situations. Journal of Medical Ethics 2007, 33(3), 160-164:

1. How has the claim that it is highly probable that little embryos will die early been used in debates about embryo research, and what do you think about the claim? 
2. What is meant by the ‘Embryonic Stem Cell Lottery’? Do you think the argument justifies embryo research?
3. What are the arguments developed to counter the claim that early embryos are like lottery tickets?
4. Which argument about a famous violinist did Thomson develop, and how is the argument used here?

Resource 4: Why current UK legislation on embryo research is immoral. How the argument from lack of qualities and the argument from potentiality have been applied and why they should be rejected. Bioethics 2005, 19(3), 251-271:

1. What do you think about the House of Lords’ Select Committee’s attempts to justify embryo research?
2. What is meant by ‘sentience’? Do you think sentience is relevant to determine moral status?
3. Describe the four arguments from potentiality that are discussed? What do you think of them? 
4. What is ‘egalitarian speciesism’? Do you agree with it?

 C. GENETICS

Resource 1: Are scientists right and non-scientists wrong? Reflections on discussions of GM. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2005, 18(5), 451-478:

1. What are the arguments that UK policy-makers and policy advisors used to reject the view that GM is unnatural? What do you think of these?
2. Why did some interviewees reject the view that GM is unnatural?
3. Why did some interviewees hold the view that GM is unnatural?
4. Do you think that the benefits associated with GM technologies are significant enough to endorse these technologies?

Resource 2: the genetics contextualised scenario: the case of ‘Mark and Katie’ (human genetics) See https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/genetics-contextualised-scenario

1. If you are a geneticist or a GP, what is the dilemma in relation to carrier identification (theme 1)?
2. What are the ethical issues raised by pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and human reproductive cloning (theme 2)?
3. What are the ethical issues raised by amniocentesis (and other methods that aim to establish a prenatal diagnosis) (theme 3)?
4. What are the ethical issues associated with embryonic stem cell research (theme 4)?


Publications