Regulation of hESC research in australia: Promises and pitfalls for deliberative democratic approaches [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3 (1-2):95-107 (2006)
This paper considers the legislative debates in Australia that led to the passage of the Research Involving Human Embryos Act (Cth 2002) and the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act (Cth 2002). In the first part of the paper, we discuss the debate surrounding the legislation with particular emphasis on the ways in which demands for public consultation, public debate and the education of Australians about the potential ethical and scientific impact of human embryonic stem cells (hESC) research were deployed, and the explicit and implicit framing of the scope of public consultation. We then ask whether, given the calls for public consultations, debate and understanding, current work in democratic theory could be helpful in analysing the process of policy-making in these areas. In particular, we canvass the literature relating to aggregative and deliberative models of democracy for processes that support the legitimacy of policy. We identify features of the debate that reflect the appeal of deliberative approaches as well as some of the possible hurdles or limitations to developing deliberative democratic approaches to policy in ethically contentious areas.
|Keywords||Stem cell transplantation Bioethics Embryo research Public policy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Renee Kyle & Susan Dodds (2009). Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in Debates About Nanotechnologies. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):81-96.
Susan Dodds & Colin Thomson (2006). Bioethics and Democracy: Competing Roles of National Bioethics Organisations. Bioethics 20 (6):326–338.
Similar books and articles
Robert Streiffer (2010). Chimeras, Moral Status, and Public Policy: Implications of the Abortion Debate for Public Policy on Human/Nonhuman Chimera Research. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (2):238-250.
John S. Brady (2004). No Contest? Assessing the Agonistic Critiques of Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of the Public Sphere. Philosophy and Social Criticism 30 (3):331-354.
Kristen Lyons & James Whelan (2010). Community Engagement to Facilitate, Legitimize and Accelerate the Advancement of Nanotechnologies in Australia. NanoEthics 4 (1):53-66.
Mark Moller (2009). Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research and the Discarded Embryo Argument. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (2):131-145.
John Parkinson (2006). Deliberating in the Real World: Problems of Legitimacy in Deliberative Democracy. OUP Oxford.
Rebecca Dresser (2010). Stem Cell Research as Innovation: Expanding the Ethical and Policy Conversation. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (2):332-341.
Matthew Cotton (2009). Discourse, Upstream Public Engagement and the Governance of Human Life Extension Research. Poiesis and Praxis 7 (1-2):135-150.
Jan P. Beckmann (2004). On the German Debate on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (5):603 – 621.
Daniel P. Sulmasy (2009). Deliberative Democracy and Stem Cell Research in New York State: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19 (1):pp. 63-78.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #148,525 of 1,102,882 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #62,002 of 1,102,882 )
How can I increase my downloads?