Advertisement

Community Consultation in a Liberal Society

  • Loane Skene
Chapter
Part of the Sophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures book series (SCPT, volume 30)

Abstract

When new laws are being considered to regulate emerging technologies, it is common to engage in a formal consultation process to assess community views, especially in sensitive areas where views may differ widely. However, it is not clear how we should assess the responses to such consultation. If the respondents with the most extreme views, at either end of the political or ethical spectrum, speak in large numbers or strong language, their submissions surely cannot be added up and given the weight of the majority in determining the course of future action. The ‘silent majority’ of the community may not participate in the consultation process at all. Even if they do participate more fully, it will often not be possible to find a compromise solution that offers something to everyone.

Professor Charlesworth considered these issues in his ground-breaking book, Bioethics in a Liberal Society (Charlesworth M, Bioethics in a liberal society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993). He said that there are some issues on which community consensus on a core set of values will not be possible. To move forward, a liberal society must accept that there will be a range of views but however discordant those views appear to be, it may still be possible to identify matters on which there is agreement. Those matters may then form the basis of a policy that is widely accepted, even if it is not what the individual participants would have chosen initially. This approach may be illustrated by examining recent community consultation in Australia concerning research involving human embryos.

Keywords

Emerging technologies Ethics Law Policy Consultation Embryo research 

References

  1. Australian Law Reform Commission. (2003). Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia. ALRC 96. http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/title/alrc96/index.htm. Viewed 25 Aug 2016.
  2. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Charlesworth, M. (1989). Life, death, genes and ethics: Biotechnology and bioethics. Boyer Lectures. Crows Nest: ABC Enterprises for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.Google Scholar
  4. Charlesworth, M. (1993). Bioethics in a liberal society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Habermas, J. (1991). Discourse ethics: Notes on a program of philosophical justification. In S. Benhabib & F. Dallmayr (Eds.), The communicative ethics controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Lockhart Committee Report. (2002). The Report of the Legislation Review Committee for the Review of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research involving Human Embryos Act 2002, 2005. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/research/embryos/review/index.htm. Viewed 25 Aug 2016. The site of the Lockhart Committee is archived at: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/63190. Viewed 25 Aug 2016.
  7. Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 (Cth). http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2008C00694. Viewed 25 Aug 2016.
  8. Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 (Cth). http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2008C00689. Viewed 25 Aug 2016.
  9. Skene, L., Kerridge, I., McCombe, P., & Schofield, P. (2008). The Lockhart committee: Developing policy through commitment to moral values, community and democratic processes. Journal of Law and Medicine, 16, 132.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Loane Skene
    • 1
  1. 1.Melbourne Law School, University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations