conference proceedings of congress International Bioethics 1999. Bioethics and dignity in a pluralistic society

_{Table of contents}

Table of work II: Some bioethical issues in the human lifespan

Moderator:
José López Guzmán, Associate Professor. department de Humanities Biomedicas. University of Navarra.

Speakers:
Dr. Prof. Paloma Durán La Laguna, Senior Associate Professor de Philosophy del Derecho, Jefe del Gabinete de International Office del high school de la Mujer. Ministry of Social Affairs.
Dr. Enrique Prat de la Riba, publisher of the journal "Imago Hominis, Imabe Institut, Vienna.
Dr. Prof. Javier Escrivá Ivars, Full Professor de Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado, Deputy Director del high school de Ciencias para la Familia, Universidad de Navarra.
summary prepared by José López Guzmán, department of Humanities Biomedical Sciences.

The work round table on 22 October consisted of Dr. Paloma Durán La Laguna, Dr. Enrique Herrando Prat de la Riba and Dr. Javier Escrivá Ivars.

Firstly, Dr. Durán, Professor of Philosophy of Law and Head of the Cabinet of International Office of high school de la Mujer, took part. She analysed conscientious objection from a legal point of view, focusing her intervention on conscientious objection in the field of women's health and its protection in the texts of committee of Europe and the United Nations.

Dr. Durán began by pointing out that conscientious objection can be approached from different perspectives as it offers a great number of nuances. She considered that, in conscientious objection, it is necessary to define the legal right to be protected in the different sectors or areas. In this sense, he maintained that the recognition of conscientious objection as a right entails the protection of a legal good, which is conscience. Consequently, he began by defining what is meant by conscience. According to Durán, this becomes a problem since, in a plural society, we find a wide range of definitions that will have to be qualified and delimited. However, he pointed out that, as far as conscience is concerned, there is a general consensus that it is part of the minimum needs to be protected, regardless of the political or economic system in force in each country. This is even more so in comparison with other protected rights that are clearly dependent on the political and economic system in which they become viable. At final, it is internationally undisputed that freedom of conscience is a basic non-material need that must be protected. It added that this protection must have practical consequences in the legal field.

The second speaker was Dr. Herrando Prat de la Riva, publisher of the journal "Imago Hominis" of the IMABE Institut in Vienna. His exhibition was structured in two clearly differentiated sections: one dealt with the relationship between Bioethics, Biolegal and Biopolitics; the other with the ethics of transplants.

With regard to the first chapter, he pointed out that Bioethics, Biolegal and Biopolitics are three sciences, three planes that tend to be confused. In Herrando's words, Bioethics emerged in the second half of the 20th century to respond to ethical problems generated by technological and life-related advances. Its dissemination was driven by politicians and jurists who needed results quickly. This status has meant that over the last thirty years biolegal science has dominated the bioethics discussion . According to speaker, this trend has arisen for three reasons: a) because of the desire to regulate bioethical issues as quickly as possible; b) because jurists and legal philosophers have managed to achieve; and c) because many post-modern ethical approaches insist on a sharp separation between ethics and law.

Professor Herrando maintained that legal philosophers have achieved this relevant position in the bioethical discussion because they are the intermediaries between politics and ethics. This status brings with it the problem of the tendency of these professionals to adopt positivist approaches.

Having considered the above aspects, Professor Herrando maintained thesis that, under the pressure of biolegal ethics, bioethics is emerging as a political ethics in a post-modern sense, far removed from the approaches proposed by personalist ethics.

The second part of his speech was devoted to raising five questions on the ethics of transplants, leaving aside the problem of brain death which, according to Herrando, is an important issue but is still a discussion of subject academic.

The first problem concerns the nature of organ donation. The question is what is man's relationship to his organs. The speaker maintained that there is no property right of man over his own or other people's organs. No one can impose an obligation on another to donate organs. Donation is, in short, an act of charity or solidarity. The second problem revolves around consent: must it be an express act of liberality, and is the presumption of consent sufficient? The third point of reflection was the gratuitousness of organ donation. Herrando argued that there is no problem with the fact that there is some remuneration. It may be legitimate to demand remuneration, and even considerable amounts of money, although it is clear that it cannot be turned into a commercial transaction. The fourth aspect to be taken into consideration concerns the distribution of organs. The problem is that in any society in which money plays a decisive role, this criterion also applies to the distribution of organs. Finally, he referred to topic of xenotransplantation. According to speaker, it raises many ethical questions. Therefore, he concluded that the importance of topic requires a thorough and wide-ranging discussion. Prudence is the best way to avoid being overtaken by events.

The last participant at the work table was Dr. Escrivá, Full Professor of State Ecclesiastical Law and Deputy Director of high school of Family Sciences at the University of Navarra. His intervention focused on freedom of conscience versus conscientious objection.

Professor Escrivá maintained that one of the few undisputed data of the end of the 20th century is religious, ideological, ethical, cultural and ethnic plurality. This fact is a logical consequence of the very idea of democracy. This is why we often encounter irreconcilable and opposing doctrines. The fundamental question will not be to eliminate diversity, but to "establish channels through which just and stable societies can endure, composed of free and equal citizens who are, however, divided by religious, philosophical, ethical or moral doctrines". For Escrivá, a point core topic on this path is the recognition of religious and ideological freedom and respect for the individual conscience of citizens in their search for truth. On the basis of this reflection, the speaker went on to expose the confrontation that arises between conscience and law. Do citizens have the right to behave in social life according to the guidelines set by their own conscience? Do citizens have the right to dissent? Escrivá answered these questions by maintaining that "the right to freedom of conscience, like any other human right, is not an absolute and unlimited right and, consequently, conscientious objection cannot be considered as such either. The limits are: the rights of others, public morals, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

After the three speeches mentioned above, the morning speakers, Professors Hans Thomas, Ángela Aparisi and Gérard Mémeteau, joined the table. A question and answer session was then opened. The discussion focused on the criteria for the determination of death and the consequent availability of organs for transplantation. Questions concerning the application of conscientious objection to specific aspects of certain health professions were also addressed.