Germ-Line Gene Therapy

Is the Existing UK Norm Ethically Valid?
  • Sheila Dziobon


According to Jürgen Habermas, regulation of a society by “action norms” remains valid for those to whom they are addressed if they are a product of rational discourse within a pre-existing framework of private and public rights granted to an individual as a member of a socially determined association — the society of which the addressee is a member (Habermas, 1996, p. 107). This pre-existing framework places emphasis on rights in a broader sense than either the “liberal” tradition’s concept of human rights as the expression of moral self-determination or the idea of rights as the legal protection of the individual against institutions of the state. The basic requirement is the “right to the greatest possible measure of equal individual liberties” which can be achieved only with the associated rights of “status of member” and the political facility to exercise those rights, including “equal opportunities to participate in processes of opinion-and will-formation in which citizens exercise their political autonomy and through which they generate legitimate law. ” (Habermas, 1996, p. 122–3).


Cystic Fibrosis Gene Therapy Ethical Basis Human Fertilisation Prenatal Genetic Test 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, W.F., (1989) ‘Human Gene Therapy: Why draw a line?, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 14, 681–693.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckwith, J. (1991), ‘Foreword: The Human Genome Initiative: Genetics’ Lighning Rod’, American Journal of Law and Medicine, Vol. XVII.No. 1–2.Google Scholar
  3. Council of Europe: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. European Treaty Series 164, Oviedo, 4.IV.1997.Google Scholar
  4. Davis et al (1990), ‘The Human Genome and Other Initiatives’, 249 Science 342, 342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC), (1997) Third Annual Report, Health Department of the UK.Google Scholar
  6. Habermas, J (1981) The Theory of Communicative Action (trans. Thomas McCarthy, 2 vols, Boston: Beacon, 1984, 1987).Google Scholar
  7. Habermas, J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Blackwell, Oxford. (Translated by William Rehg).Google Scholar
  8. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (1990 c.37).Google Scholar
  9. Kennedy & Grubb, (1994) Medical Law: text with materials, 2ed. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
  10. Lippman, A (1991), ‘Prenatal Genetic Testing and Screening: Constructing Needs and Reinforcing Inequities’, American Journal of Law & Medicine, Vol. XVII. No. 1 & 2, p. 15–50.Google Scholar
  11. Report of the Committee on the Ethics of Gene Therapy, Cm. 1788, (1992) HMSO, London, (The Clothier Report).Google Scholar
  12. Royal College of Physicians, (1990a) Research Involving Patients. A Working Party Report, London.Google Scholar
  13. Royal College of Physicians. (1990b) Guidelines on the Practice of Ethics Committees in Research Involving Human Subjects, 2ed London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheila Dziobon
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations