Advertisement

Which Duty First?

An Ethical Scheme on the Conflict Between Respect for Autonomy and Common Welfare in Order to Prepare the Moral Grounds for Trust
  • Peter Dabrock
Conference paper
  • 649 Downloads
Part of the Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Deutsches, Europäisches und Internationales Medizinrecht, Gesundheitsrecht und Bioethik der Universitäten Heidelberg und Mannheim book series (IMGB, volume 33)

Abstract

Biobanks will only be established successfully and run sustainably if the principles, procedures of governance, management, control and participation are built solidly on trust. Against this backdrop, this paper proposes the idea that – subject to the development of some reasonable conditions – we cannot deny a certain moral obligation to participate in forms of biotechnological advances in genomics such as biobanks. In order to develop a sound argument, the theological and ethical approach that is taken in this contribution is sketched out. Thereby, a special (and not a general) account of moral obligations to participate in biobanking is defended. Such a scheme will, from its outset, take into account existing fears and anxieties but will serve not to assert these fears in general and therefore abolish the use of genomic-based measures, but to find a responsible way to deal with them. Therefore, the concepts of “genetic exceptionalism” and “persons genetically at risk”, which are prevalent in the debates about genomic research in general and biobanking in particular, are rejected. Dealing with the question whether there are obligations to participate in biobank research and which criteria might be relevant to determine the conditions, which make it legitimate to assume and to gradualize such obligations, an ethical model for balancing respect for autonomy and common welfare is developed, presented and defended.

Keywords

Genomic Research Human Dignity Moral Obligation Ethical Approach Genetic Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Brand A, Dabrock P, Gibis B (2003) Neugeborenen-Screening auf angeborene Stoffwechselstörungen und Endokrinopathien – aktuelle ethische Fragen aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven In: Dörries A et al (eds) Das Kind als Patient – Ethische Konflikte zwischen Kindeswohl und Kindeswille. Campus, Frankfurt am Main, 217-233Google Scholar
  2. Dabrock P (2008) Risikodimensionen genetischer Tests bei Adipositas. In: Hilbert A, Dabrock P, Rief W (eds) Gewichtige Gene. Adipositas zwischen Prädisposition und Eigenverantwortung. Huber, Bern, 167-190Google Scholar
  3. Dabrock P, Klinnert L, Schardien, S (2004) Menschenwürde und Lebensschutz. Herausforderungen theologischer Bioethik. Gütersloher Verlagshaus, GüterslohGoogle Scholar
  4. Dagger R (2007) Political Obligation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2007 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2007/entries/political-obligationGoogle Scholar
  5. Heyd D (2006) Supererogation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Fall (2006 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2006/entries/supererogationGoogle Scholar
  6. Johnson R (2008) Kant’s Moral Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2008 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2008/entries/kant-moralGoogle Scholar
  7. Kant I (1959) Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Bobbs-Merrill Publishing, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  8. Lemke T (2008) Von der sozialtechnokratischen zur selbstregulatorischen Prävention: Die Geburt der „genetischen Risikoperson“. In: Hilbert A, Dabrock P, Rief W (eds) Gewichtige Gene. Adipositas zwischen Prädisposition und Eigenverantwortung. Huber, Bern, 151-165Google Scholar
  9. Luhmann N (2004) Einführung in die Systemtheorie. Carl Auer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  10. Murray T (1997) Genetic Exceptionalism and ‘Future Diaries’: Is Genetic Information Different from Other Medical Information? In: Rothstein M (ed) Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era. Yale University Press, New Haven, 60-73Google Scholar
  11. Novas C, Rose N (2000) Genetic Risk and the Birth of the Somatic Individual. Econ Soc 29: 485-513Google Scholar
  12. Nussbaum M (2000) Women and Human Development. The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Nussbaum M (2006) Frontiers of Justice. Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Harvard University Press, Cambridge et alGoogle Scholar
  14. Powers M, Faden R (2006) Social Justice. The Moral Foundations of Public Health and Health Policy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Rabinow P (1996) Artificiality and Enlightenment. From Sociobiology to Biosociality. In: Essays on the Anthropology of Reason. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 91-111Google Scholar
  16. Rose N (2007) The Politics of Life itself. Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  17. Schröder P (2004) Gendiagnostische Gerechtigkeit. Eine ethische Studie über die Herausforderungen postnataler genetischer Prädiktion. LIT Verlag, Münster et alGoogle Scholar
  18. Wilson JMG, Junger G (1968) The principles and practice of screening for disease. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  19. World Health Organisation (WHO) (2002) Genomics and World Health. Report of the Advisory Committee on Health Research. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Dabrock
    • 1
  1. 1.Friedrich-Alexander-UniversityErlangen-NurembergGermany

Personalised recommendations