Abstract
The article aims to explain the meaning and the presence of the false dilemma in the bioethics discussion, when the argumentation is reduced to two antagonistic positions, not allowing the debate because it eliminates intermediary solutions. The fallacy occurs in the deliberation of clinical or investigative ethics committees when members confuse rhetorical argumentation with logical demonstration, not taking into account that the solution is always contingent. It is also present in society’s public debates on current ethical challenges, when participants do not take a pragmatic perspective, but advocate an ideological position that hinders dialogue and discussion of consensual solutions, which can always be reviewed. The lack of absolute certainty to the contexts, with is the hermeneutical condition required by practical, rhetorical and pragmatic rationality and the basis for a critical bioethics.
Bioethics; Bias; Deliberations; Wedge argument; Proof of concept study; Hermeneutics