Bioethics 25 (1):37-45 (2011)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
Current developments in biomedicine are presenting us with difficult ethical decisions and raising complex policy questions about how to regulate these new developments. Particularly vexing for governments have been issues related to human embryo experimentation. Because some of the most promising biomedical developments, such as stem cell research and nuclear somatic transfer, involve such experimentation, several international bodies have drafted documents aimed to provide guidance to governments when developing biomedical science policy. Here I focus on two such documents: the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being and the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being.I argue that by using human dignity as a criterion to determine the permissibility of particular human embryo research practices, these documents cannot aid in identifying research that would be contrary to human dignity. Thus, they fail to guide public policy on embryo experimentation. Their use of human dignity as a criterion makes their task of offering guidance unfeasible because the concept as used in these documents is too vague and is applied in contradictory ways. I discuss the main goals of these documents and their claims in relation to human embryo research. I then discuss how they have influenced public policy in several countries. Finally, I show that although these Council of Europe treaties attempt to serve as public policy guides in the area of embryo research, they fail to do so
|
Keywords | public policy embryo research human dignity Council of Europe |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01737.x |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
A Principled and Cosmopolitan Neuroethics: Considerations for International Relevance.John R. Shook & James Giordano - 2014 - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 9:1.
Advance Healthcare Directives: Binding or Informational Value?Gianluca Montanari Vergallo - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):98-109.
Similar books and articles
The Scope of Public Discourse Surrounding Proposition 71: Looking Beyond the Moral Status of the Embryo. [REVIEW]Tamra Lysaght, Rachel A. Ankeny & Ian Kerridge - 2006 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3 (1-2):109-119.
Human Cloning Laws, Human Dignity and the Poverty of the Policy Making Dialogue.Timothy Caulfield - 2003 - BMC Medical Ethics 4 (1):1-7.
Protecting Human Dignity in Research Involving Humans.Thomas De Koninck - 2009 - Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (1-2):17-25.
Policy Design for Human Embryo Research in Canada: An Analysis (Part 2 of 2). [REVIEW]Françoise Baylis & Matthew Herder - 2009 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (3):351-365.
Chimeras and Human Dignity.Inmaculada de Melo-Martín - 2008 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18 (4):pp. 331-346.
Engineering Human Reproduction: A Challenge to Public Policy.Samuel Gorovitz - 1985 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 10 (3):267-274.
The National Bioethics Advisory Commission: Contributing to Public Policy.Elisa Eiseman - 2003 - Rand.
Policy Design for Human Embryo Research in Canada: A History (Part 1 of 2). [REVIEW]Françoise Baylis & Matthew Herder - 2009 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):109-122.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2009-07-09
Total views
59 ( #190,834 of 2,497,712 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #212,637 of 2,497,712 )
2009-07-09
Total views
59 ( #190,834 of 2,497,712 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #212,637 of 2,497,712 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads