Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Bioethics in Law pp 73–97Cite as

Bioethics Commission Reports

  • Chapter

Abstract

Federal bioethics commissions have existed intermittently since the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research was created by Congress in 1974. They have included the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978–1983); The Ethics Advisory Board (1978–1979); the Biomedical Ethical Advisory Committee (1988–1990); the Human Embryo Research Panel (1994); the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (1994–1995); the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (1996–2001); and the President’s Council on Bioethics (2001-present).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Endnotes

  1. Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 1993, enacted October 2, 1972. Pub. L. no. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bybee JS. Advising the President: Separation of powers and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Yale Law J 1994;104:51–128 at 58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gray BH. Bioethics commissions: What can we learn from past successes and failures? In: Bulger RE, Bobby EM, Fineberg HV, eds. Society’s Choices: Social and Ethical Decision Making in Biomedicine. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995: 261–306 at 271. See Table 4.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Spielman B. Should consensus be ‘The commission method’ in the U.S.? The perspective of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, regulations, and case law. Bioethics 2004;17:341–356; Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Ariz., 121 P.3d 1256, 1268 (2005), citing The President’s Council on Bioethics. Reproduction and responsibility: The regulation of new biotechnologies, http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/reproductionandresponsibility/index.html (visite February 7, 2006). There is debate regarding whether consensus should be sought to increase a report’s influence if the drive for consensus erases moral differences and “thins” the substance of the reports. See Evans JH. Playing God?: Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. The President’s Council on Bioethics report Being human: Readings from the President’s Council on Bioethics, http://www.bioethics.gov/bookshelf/ (visited February 3, 2006) is even more eclectic than the unusual bioethics commission report. It contains selections from Homer, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, American folk songs, contemporary fiction and poetry, and even a screenplay.

  6. http://www.sfms.org/sfm/sfm205b.htm (visited Oct 11, 2005). Whether the report and regulations are the result of an ethical debate stripped of ethical substance is the subject of Evans JH. Playing God?: Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002.

  7. John Ancheff v. Hartford Hospital, et al, 260 Conn. 785 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ancheff v. Hartford Hosp., 260 Conn. 785, 804 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ancheff v. Hartford Hosp., 260 Conn. 785, 806–807 (2002). Resistance to invoking the Nazi analogy because it is “ethically repugnant” is not unique to the litigation context. Concern has arisen in nonlitigation bioethics contexts as well, for example, in the Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research panel, in which the analogy was drawn between subjects of Nazi research and dead fetuses used as a source of materials for research. Childress JF. Consensus in ethics and public policy: The deliberations of the U.S. human fetal tissue transplantation research panel. In: Bayertz K., ed. The Concept of Moral Consensus. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994;163–187 at 176.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jasanoff S. Law’s knowledge: Science for justice in legal settings. Am J Public Health 2005;95(S1):S49–58 at S51. Jasanoff points out that the law’s knowledge is situated within the four corners of the case. It is conditioned by the principles within which a case arises and has meaning as a cause of legal action.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ericka Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc. Myron Higgins, a minor, etc., et al. v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc., 366 Md. 29, 36 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  12. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Report and Recommendations Research Involving Children. Washington, D.C: DHEW Publication, 1977 at 79–80. The prologue continues, “Our research reveals this statement remains as accurate now as it was in 1977.” (Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Inst., Inc., 366 Md. 29, 36 [2001]).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants. IRB 2001;23:14–16.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Inst., Inc., 366 Md. 29, 102 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Yovel J, Mertz E. The role of social science in legal decisions. In: Sarat A, editor. The Blackwell Companion to Law and Society. Malden, MA, Oxford UK, and Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004: 410–431.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Inst., Inc., 366 Md. 29, 41 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Inst., Inc., 366 Md. 29, 99 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  18. When the court drew on the concept of “minimal risk” (developed in the report and subsequently adopted in the governing pediatric research regulations) it used it more stringently than either the report or the subsequent regulations had. Kopelman LM. Pediatric research regulations under legal scrutiny: Grimes narrows their interpretation. J L Med & Ethics 2002;30:38–49 at 41. Friedman RL. In defense of the Hopkins lead abatement studies. J L Med & Ethics 2002;30:50–57 at 51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Inst., Inc., 366 Md. 29, 122–123 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Annas GJ, Glantz LH, Katz BF. Law of informed consent in human experimentation: Children. In: United States National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, ed. Report and Recommendations Research Involving Children. Washington, D.C.: DHEW, 1977: 2.1–2.63.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Inst., Inc., 366 Md. 29, 41 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Research Involving Children United States National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Report and Recommendations Research Involving Children. Washington, D.C.: DHEW Publication, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Matthew Woods, deceased, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, T. Bruce Simpson, Jr., Appellant v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Human Resources (Now cabinet for Families and Children), Appellee, 142 S.W. 3d. 24 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Woods v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W. 3d 24, 28 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Woods v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W. 3d. 24, 68 (2004), citing President’s Commission, Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment at 15 n. 1, 17–18 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Woods v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W. 3d. 24, 69 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Woods v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W. 3d. 24, 72 (2004) citing President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment: A Report on the Ethical, Medical, and Legal Issues in Treatment Decisions. Washington, D.C.: President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1983 at 247.

    Google Scholar 

  28. The appeal challenges the constitutionality of KRS 311.631, a provision of the Kentucky Living Will Directive Act, insofar as it permits a judicially appointed guardian or other designated surrogate to authorize the withholding or withdrawal of artificial life-prolonging treatment from a ward or patient who is either in a persistent vegetative state or permanently unconscious. Woods v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W. 3d. 24, 28 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  29. “The term’ suppositional science’ refers to two types of ‘findings’ advanced by social researchers: First, those that on their face are untestable or have not been tested in any fashion whatsoever; and second those that assume the veneer of science (i.e., are forwarded as fully tested propositions) but have yet to be tested adequately.” Faigman DL. Normative Constitutional fact-finding: Exploring the empirical component of Constitutional interpretation. U Pa L Rev 1991;139:541–613 at 613 footnote 110.

    Google Scholar 

  30. William Lee Wright, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, et al., Defendants, 269 F. Supp. 2d 1286–1296 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Edward L. Abney, Barbara Allen, James Day, Robert Green, Delbert Jackson, James Pugh, Roger Thacker and Daniel Hunter Webster v. Amgen, Inc., Defendant, 2005 U.S. Dist LEXIS 14258 (2005). Aff’d, Abney V. Amgen, 2006 U. S. App. LEXIS 7638 6A (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Abney v. Amgen, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist LEXIS 14258 (2005) at 3 ftnt 11.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Britell v. United States, 204 F.Supp. 2d 182 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. McRae, et al., 448 U.S. 297 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  35. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment: A Report on the Ethical, Medical, and Legal Issues in Treatment Decisions. Washington, D.C.: President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1983 at 225–227.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wash. v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Britell v. United States, 204 F.Supp. 2d 182, 198 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Faigman calls this type of legislative fact “constitutional-legislative facts.” See Faigman DL. Normative Constitutional fact-finding: Exploring the empirical component of Constitutional interpretation. U Pa L Rev 1991;139:541–613 at 553.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Britell v. United States, 204 F.Supp. 2d 182, 191 (2002): b. Legal Status of Anencephaly. Funding the abortion of anencephalic fetuses is not the first occasion on which the federal government, and, indeed, other governmental entities, have had to consider the heartbreaking dilemmas faced by anencephaly. The issue has arisen with respect to the question of whether a doctor has an obligation to provide medical treatment to anencephalics, in the event the woman decides to continue her pregnancy and the fetus is not stillborn. Although not controlling, the right to treatment debate is helpful to this analysis in two respects. First, it offers an analogy to the case at bar—that in other settings anencephaly has been treated as so incompatible with “potential life” that a physician may withhold treatment. Second, it bears on CHAMPUS’ concerns that covering abortions of anencephalics will lead down the “slippery slope” to funding abortion of other lethal fetal anomalies, which is inconsistent with the statutory mandate.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Britell v. United States, 372 F.3d 1370–1383 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Although both Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment and the Baby Doe regulations distinguished anencephaly from other conditions, and could, thus, serve one of Judge Gertner’s purposes (to refute CHAMPUS’ slippery slope arguments), the report didn’t “endorse” the regulations. Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment was, in fact critical of the regulations. The report writers thought that “Instead of adding further uncertainty to an already complex situation, the Federal government would do better to encourage hospitals to improve their procedures for overseeing life-and-death decisions.” President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment: A Report on the Ethical, Medical, and Legal Issues in Treatment Decisions. Washington, D.C.: President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1983 at 226.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Woods v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W. 3d. 24, 46 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Judge Wintersheimer himself relied on more recent Roman Catholic statements such as John Paul II’s Gospel of Life; Evangelium Vitae (1995); and other recent Roman Catholic texts as well as addresses by Pope John Paul II.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Collier CW. The use and abuse of humanistic theory in law: Reexamining the assumptions of interdisciplinary legal scholarship. Duke L J 1991;41:191–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Woods v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W. 3d. 24, 63 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Belinda L. Jeter, a married woman; William R. Jeter, a married man, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mayo Clinic Arizona d/b/a Mayo Clinic Scottsdale and/or Center for Reproductive Medicine, an Arizona corporation, Defendant-Appellee, 121 P.3d 1256 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  47. The President’s Council on Bioethics. Reproduction and responsibility: The regulation of new biotechnologies, http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/reproductionandresponsibility/index.html (visited February 7, 2006).

  48. Spielman B. Should consensus be ‘The commission method’ in the U.S.? The perspective of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, regulations, and case law. Bioethics 2004;17:341–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Ariz., 121 P.3d 1256, 1268 (2005), citing The President’s Council on Bioethics. Reproduction and responsibility: The regulation of new biotechnologies, http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/reproductionandresponsibility/index.html (visited February 7, 2006) at 123–127 and 223–224.

  50. Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Ariz., 121 P.3d 1256 (2005) at 1268 citing The President’s Council on Bioethics. Reproduction and responsibility: The regulation of new biotechnologies, http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/reproductionandresponsibility/index.html (visited February 7, 2006) at 223.

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Humana Press Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2007). Bioethics Commission Reports. In: Bioethics in Law. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-295-3_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-295-3_5

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-434-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-59745-295-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation