conference proceedings of congress International Bioethics 1999. Bioethics and dignity in a pluralistic society
Table of contents
desk I: Bioethics at the beginning of human life
Moderator:
Dr. María Dolores Vila Coro. Professor of Philosophy del Derecho. Complutense University of Madrid.
Speakers:
Dr. María Elósegui Itxaso. Professor of Philosophy del Derecho. University of Zaragoza.
Dr. Luis Miguel Pastor García. Professor of Cellular Biology. University of Murcia.
Dr. Ana Vega Gutiérrez. Associate Professor of Canon Law. University of La Rioja.
summary prepared by Marina Camps. department de Philosophy del Derecho.
During the afternoon discussions at desk , the topics discussed in relation to bioethics at the beginning of life were varied and touched on both substantive issues and specific problems.
Dr. María Dolores Vila Coro, in her introduction as moderator of the session at work, highlighted the insufficiency of current laws to guide the application of new technologies. Considering that "there are no limits to science, but when this science is applied to something that is related to the human being, that is when ethics intervenes and, for this reason, this more precise science has been born, which is bioethics", she clarified that this is only feasible if it is based on the first anthropological moral principle: respect for man as the only subject of law, with absolute value whose interests must take precedence over any other. He also pointed out that the only alternative to this, necessarily, is the instrumentalisation of the person, thus giving rise to a "perverse logic". As an example of this, he cited the English and French cases, in which the actions of parents who had killed newborn children with serious deficiencies were judged. The defence and the judgement show the "perverse logic" mentioned above: a father who killed his child cannot coherently be condemned because, if these deficiencies had been known prior to birth, the children could have been aborted. Therefore, according to the judgments, it is a simple question of timing: if during pregnancy such a homicide was not punishable, it should not be punishable now. This logic leads to absurdity. Again, Vila Coro points out that, "the error lies in the starting point, in not respecting the right to life of every human being, from the moment of conception. By not taking into account the sense of the value and dignity of human life, which demands the utmost respect, we fall into a dynamic in which each spiral justifies the next until we reach the point of absurdity, irrationality, absurdity...". Behind these attitudes, one can glimpse a fear of slowing down progress, running a great risk, the relativisation of the absolute value of people.
In this sense, María Elósegui Itxaso, pointed out that "scientific progress is a desirable reality that should lead to human happiness and health". It all depends on how science is used, which in itself could be said to be "harmless, it is human beings who are dangerous". Again, the issue of human dignity is at stake. There are two perspectives - or conceptions - on the relationship between biology and law and, depending on this conception, the consequences for human dignity. Specifically, in international conferences and organisations, there are two - radical - visions of bioethics: a) one that maintains that there is a relationship between biology and law and that biology must be respected as a reality prior to the legal system; b) the other that, on the contrary, maintains that there is no relationship or connection between both dimensions and that, therefore, law can be constructed with its back to biology. In the first position, a classical approach can be observed, in the second, the tradition of Anglo-Saxon liberalism. Moreover, it should be noted that in Europe today, there is a strong influence of model b) to the extent that cultural pluralism is generally translated into Anglo-Saxon liberalism. The law is currently liberal, and alters biological relations by giving priority to autonomy staff. Moreover, it does not use neutral language, quite the contrary. Behind it lies a model of what man is, a determined anthropology that is more akin to a dogmatism of freedom than to an authentic pluralism.
Luis Miguel Pastor, for his part, stresses that this position entails an "intellectual tyranny that tries to impose an epistemological model on us: "a new truth: that there is no truth". staff If, on the one hand, it is true that in a pluralist society such as today's, no one is opposed to the discussion of ideas, "true dialogue must allow the truth inherent in the human condition of respect for all without exception to shine through". In this sense, although ideas can separate us, there is no reason to resort to violence, neither freedom nor the respect inherent in human dignity can be denied. In final, Pastor affirms that "the inviolable respect due to every human being and respect for consciences is an intrinsic ethical absolute of a personalist bioethics, the only perspective that allows true pluralism".
Dr. Ana Vega, throughout her speech, highlighted how this bioethical discussion and this liberal tendency is reflected in the Spanish legal and judicial sphere. Law 35/1988 on reproduction techniques and the assisted reproduction law 42/1988 on the donation and use of human embryos are two clear examples of this. If, on the one hand, it can be pointed out that "the difficulty and charm of bioethics lies in the need to advance through a territory without a map", on the other hand, the causes of this difficulty can be identified. The lack of basic moral consensus in our society; the rethinking of the concept of secularism and state neutrality that proposes an unrealistic "neutral bio-legal" in an "ethically neutral pluralistic democracy"; the web of conflicting interests; the ambiguous and insufficient moral and legal language are some of them. It can be said that these biotechnological advances have changed the traditional image of the person: the inherent dignity of the person is today exclusively understood as radical freedom manifested in hyper-individualism.
There were also numerous and diverse questions from the audience at the opening of discussion. Throughout, D'Agostino clarified that "consensus is not a value but an instrument for our society (...) if we say that consensus is a value we fall into the formal version of democracy which has given terrible proof, for example, Hitler came to power with the vote of the majority...". It is simply "a pragmatic way of knowing what is a value in a given society at a given time". It can therefore be said that "the first problem of democracy is to see what to vote on and what not to vote on". In this respect, it can be affirmed that "it makes no sense to vote on certain dimensions of man, his dignity and his fundamental expectations. Fundamental human values, fundamental human rights, precede any individualisation of consensus".
Likewise, when dealing with the topic of frozen embryos, D'Agostino, basing himself on the old fundamental principle of ancient medieval logic... "when you start from an error, anything can happen, but you will never reach the truth", affirmed that freezing is an error, and that no just solution can be reached from it. In other words, at this point in time, no solution to the frozen embryo problem can be good because the starting point was not good. Prenatal adoption would also create ethical and legal problems for frozen embryos. He believes that embryo freezing should be banned because it is intrinsically wrong.
A question put to Msgr. Melina provided an opportunity to ratify principles on artificial insemination that had been affirmed at various times during the morning lectures. Prof. May also pointed out that it can be argued on the basis of rational philosophical anthropology that "any act of generating human life that is non-marital is irresponsible and violates the respect due to human life in its generation". Furthermore, he pointed out that it is morally wrong to transplant spermatogonia, since identity staff is also in the genes, and "it should be my own self that is given in an act of marriage and not another".
On the possibility of using totipotent cells in research, instead of embryos, which paradoxically continue to be used, Pastor argued purely pragmatic reasons. He also stressed, together with María Elósegui Itxaso, that science is made by men and, therefore, there is always a person with his or her subjectivity who sees a reality, who elaborates a scientific-philosophical conception of biological reality. It cannot be denied that there is an ethical approach behind every way of looking at biology and law. A law that respects the dignity of the human person would therefore also respect its biological dimension.