A methodological error in bioethics.
The author closely examines a flaw in the reasoning used in some studies performed in the field of medical ethics. Firstly, he defines this flaw using analysis of certain cases where the wrong reasons are put forward to defend a moral position -- the person defending a theory or idea uses the wrong reasons which are not arguments confirming the theory upheld but instead are unrelated to the latter. The author then describes several cases. He cites examples of ethical problems where such a flaw in reasoning is present: problems related to vaccination, experiments involving animals, vegetarians' and Jehovah's Witnesses' attitudes, etc. In concluding, the author emphasizes that the arguments put forward in favour of a moral theme must be arguments which are moral and in some cases legal or metaphysical, but not scientific as the question is not scientific -- instead, it is moral.