Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:26:54.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changing Ethical Frameworks: From Individual Rights to the Common Good?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2011

MARGIT SUTROP
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Whereas in the 1970s early bioethicists believed that bioethics is an arena for the application of philosophical theories of utilitarianism, deontology, and natural law thinking, contemporary policy-oriented bioethicists seem rather to be keen on framing ethical issues through political ideologies. Bioethicists today are often labeled “liberal” or “communitarian,” referring to their different understandings of the relationship between the individual and society. Liberal individualism, with its conceptual base of autonomy, dignity, and privacy, enjoyed a long period of dominance in bioethics, but it has increasingly come under attack from ideologies promoting a more salient role for concepts of solidarity, community, and public interest.

Type
Special Section: From Informed Consent to No Consent?
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 533 - 545
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Academy of Medical Sciences. Personal Data for Public Good: Using Health Information in Medical Research. A Report from the Academy of Medical Sciences, 2006.

2. Hansson, M.Do we need a wider view of autonomy in epidemiological research? British Medical Journal 2010;340:1172–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Beskow, L, Burke, W, Merz, J, Barr, PA, Terry, S, Penchaszadeh, VB, et al. . Informed consent for population-based research involving genetics. Journal of the Medical Association 2001;286:2315–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. Tauber, AI.Patient Autonomy and the Ethics of Responsibility. Cambridge (MA), London: MIT Press; 2005.Google Scholar

5. Knoppers, BM, Chadwick, R.Human genetic research: emerging trends in ethics. Nature Reviews. Genetics 2005;6:75–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Callahan, D. Bioethics: Private choice and common good. Hastings Center Report 1994;24(3):28–31, at 28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. Callahan, D.Individual good and common good: A communitarian approach to bioethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 2003;46(4):496–507, at 496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. It has been suggested that the common good is a communitarian notion, whereas public interest is favored by liberals. See Hoedemaekers, R, Gordijn, B, Pijnenburg, M.Does an appeal to the common good justify individual sacrifices for genomic research? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2006;27:415–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Adopted on 19 October 2005; available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001461/146180E.pdf (last accessed 31 May 2011).

10. Aristotle. The Politics. Everson, S, editor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996, at 1253a19.Google Scholar

11. Dupré, L.The common good and the open society. Review of Politics 1993;55:687–712, at 687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Here I draw on an interpretation provided in Smith TW. Aristotle on the conditions for and limits of the common good. American Political Science Review 1999;93(3):625–36.

13. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Crisp, R, translator and editor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, at 1141b23–1142a30.Google Scholar

14. Terchek, RJ, Moore, DK.Recovering the political Aristotle: A critical response to Smith. American Political Science Review 2000;94(4):905–11, at 911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. HUGO Ethics Committee. Statement on Human Genomic Databases. London; 2002 Dec; available at http://www.hugo-international.org/img/genomic_2002.pdf (last accessed 31 May 2011).Google Scholar

16. For a detailed interpretation of the HUGO Ethics Committee Statement on Human Genomic Databases, see Chadwick R, Wilson S. Genomic databases as global public goods? Res Publica 2004;10:123–34.

Knoppers, BM, Fecteau, C.Human genomic databases: A global public good? European Journal of Health Law 2003;10:27–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

17. Knoppers, BM.Of genomics and public health: Building public “goods”? Canadian Medical Association Journal 2005 Nov 8:1185–6, at 1185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

18. See note 17, Knoppers 2005:1185–6, at 1185.

19. Chadwick, R, Berg, K.Solidarity and equity: New ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nature Reviews. Genetics 2001;2:318–21, at 320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

20. Although both terms (“open consent” and “broad consent”) are used interchangeably, for the sake of clarity I will use the term “open consent” as defined by Ants Nõmper in his monograph Open Consent—A New Form of Informed Consent for Population Genetic Databases. Tartu: Tartu University Press; 2005. His definition reads as follows: “Open consent is a research subject’s affirmative agreement to participate in a population genetic database. By giving an open consent, a research subject agrees to give a biological sample, allows the collection of personal data, the storage of the biological sample and data in a database, and the subsequent use of these for research purposes set forth in the documents related to the database. . . . Open consent is not research project-specific but is rather ‘conditions of open consent’ specific” (11).

21. Kaye, J. Broad consent—the only option for population genetic databases? In: Árnason, G, Nordal, S, Árnason, V, editors. Blood and Data: Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Human Genetic Databases. Reykjavik: University of Iceland Press; 2004:103–9.Google Scholar

22. Árnason, V.Coding and consent: Moral challenges of the database project in Iceland. Bioethics 2004;18:27–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

23. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki—Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Adopted in June 1964. Last version October 2008; available at http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3 (last accessed 31 May 2011).

24. Kristinsson, S, Árnason, V. Informed consent and human genetic database research. In: Häyry, M, Chadwick, R, Árnason, V, Árnason, G, editors. The Ethics and Governance of Human Genetic Databases: European Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007:199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. O’Neill, O.Some limits of informed consent. Journal of Medical Ethics 2003;29:4–7;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMedO’Neill, O.Informed consent and genetic information. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 2001;32:689–704;CrossRefGoogle ScholarManson, NC, O’Neill, O.Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. Robertson, A, Cresswell, K, Takian, A, Petrakaki, D, Crowe, S, Cornford, T, et al. . Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: Qualitative analysis of interim results from a prospective national evaluation. British Medical Journal 2010;341:c4564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

27. A good analysis of the anticipated benefits and harms of e-health has been provided in Catwell, L, Sheikh, A.Evaluating eHealth interventions: The need for continuous systematic evaluation. Public Library of Science Medicine 2009;6(8):e1000126.Google Scholar

28. Read more about the Estonian Electronic Health Record project: Estonian eHealth Foundation; available at http://eng.e-tervis.ee/index.html; European Commission Directorate General Information Society. Study on Legal Framework of Interoperable eHealth in Europe: National Profile Estonia. Brussels, SMART; 2007/0059; available at http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/health/docs/studies/legal-fw-interop/ehealth-legal-country-profile_estonia.pdf; Läänelaid S, Aaviksoo A. National Health Information System in Estonia 2008(11); available at http://www.hpm.org/de/Surveys/PRAXIS_-_Estland/11/National_Health_Information_System_in_Estonia.html (last accessed 31 May 2011).

29. The Estonian e-health project is regulated by the Act to Amend the Health Services Organisation Act and Other Related Acts (E-health Act) adopted by the Estonian Parliament on 12 December 2008; available at http://www.riigikogu.ee/?page=pub_ooc_file&op=emsplain&content_type=text/html&u=20080115122317&file_id=214114 (last accessed 31 May 2011).

30. The commentary on the Estonian legal framework of the e-health project is available online: http://www.e-tervis.ee/images/stories/dokumendid/eelnou_seletuskiri_(61663_v19).doc (last accessed 31 May 2011).

31. O’Neill, O.Informed consent and public health. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London—Series B: Biological Sciences 2004;359:1133–6, at 1135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

32. Bayer, R, Fairchild, AL.The genesis of public health ethics. Bioethics 2004;18(6):473–92;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMedBuchanan, DR.Autonomy, paternalism, and justice: Ethical priorities in public health. American Journal of Public Health 2008;96(1):15–21;CrossRefGoogle ScholarChildress, JF, Faden, RR, Gaare, RD, Gostin, O, Kahn, J, Bonnie, J, et al. . Public health ethics: Mapping the terrain. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2002;30:170–8;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMedKass, NE.An ethics framework for public health. American Journal of Public Health 2001;91(11):1776–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

33. Dawson, A.The future of bioethics: Three dogmas and a cup of hemlock. Bioethics 2010;24(5):218–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Takala, T.Setting a dangerous precedent? Ethical issues in human genetic database research. Medical Law International 2007;8:105–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. Conditions that are to be fulfilled before autonomy sacrifices can be justified are described in the following article: Hoedemaekers, R, Gordijn, B, Pijnenburg, M.Solidarity and justice as guiding principles in genomic research. Bioethics 2007;21(6):342–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

36. See note 19, Chadwick, Berg 2001:321.

37. Several critics have convincingly shown that the major mistake of liberal bioethics has been too narrow an understanding of merely individual liberty or self-determination. By making the idea of personal choice the highest value, liberal bioethicists have followed the Millian individualistic understanding of autonomy, which differs from the Kantian non-individualistic notion of autonomy. For Kant autonomy is founded on the rational nature of human beings, the humanity of persons. The principle of humanity requires that the rational capacity of persons be treated with respect, and never be used merely as a means for others. A return to the Kantian reading of moral autonomy as respect for the rational will of the person would allow us to understand that the principle of autonomy does not have to be restricted or abandoned in favor of the common good or public interest. See Rehbock T in this issue of the journal.

38. Taylor, C. Cross-purposes: The liberal-communitarian debate. In: Taylor, C, ed. Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1995:181–203, at 207.Google Scholar