Deryck Beyleveld

Human dignity in bioethics and biolaw.

1. Human Dignity and Human Rights: Human Dignity as Empowerment 2. Human Dignity and the New Bioethics: Human Dignity as Constraint 3. Dignity, Human Dignity, and Dignified Conduct 4. The Principle of Generic Consistency and Its Justification 5. Kant and Gewirth 6. Dignity, Rights, and Virtue under the Principle of Generic Consistency 7. Being Born with Dignity: Selecting the Genetic Characteristics of Offspring 8. Living with Dignity I: Ownership and Commodification of the Human Body and Its Parts 9. Living wih Dignity II: Patents and Contracts 10. Living with Dignity III: Prolonging Life, Denying Death, and Cosmetic Augmentation 11. Dying with Dignity Bibliography

The Media and Public Understanding of Biotechnology A Survey of Scientists and Journalists

An exploratory survey was conducted to investigate the perceptions and opinions of two important “expert” groups—scientists and journalists. Scientists working in the biotechnology field and journalists who had written or broadcast about it were regarded as key players in the communication of information about scientific developments to the lay population. This research showed that both groups agreed that the media have an important part to play in informing the public about biotechnology. Scientists were more likely than journalists to perceive coverage as too sensational and dramatic, too speculative, with too much emphasis on risks. Scientists did not exhibit much trust in journalists, even though journalists were as likely as scientists to agree that media reporting of biotechnology should be sober, balanced, and focused on the facts. Both groups also agreed that journalists need to ensure they are technically prepared when reporting on complex science issues. Scientists probably needed more media training and support from their own professional culture to facilitate more effective relations with media professionals and the public.

Embryo research in pluralistic Europe

Summary.- Zusammenfassung.- 1 Theoretical and Practical Possibilities in Human Embryo Experimentation.- 2 Adult and Embryonic Stem Cells: Clinical Perspectives.- 3 The Regulation of Embryo Research in Europe: Situation and Prospects.- 4 Attitudes toward Embryo Experimentation in Europe.- 5 Toward a Rational Debate on Embryo Research.- 6 Recommendations.- 7 Glossary.- 8 Appendices.- 9 References.- List of Authors.

The ethics of genetics in human procreation

Procreation and parenthood moral protection of the human embryo and foetus autonomy and recognition social implications moral reasoning in applied ethics legal regulation of assisted procreation, genetic diagnosis and gene therapy evaluation and perspectives.

Betrayal of Confidence in the Court of Appeal

In overturning Latham Js judgment in R v Department of Health, Ex Parte Source Informatics Ltd. that anonymisation does not obviate breaching a personal confidence, the Court of Appeal holds that where the duty of confidence arises in equity it does not prohibit the confidant using the confided information without the consent of the confider if this does not treat the confider unfairly (relative to the Courts view of the confiders legitimate interests). We argue that this principle – by bringing fairness to bear on the scope of the duty of confidence rather than on whether a breach of it may be lawful – has no authority in usable precedents; that the Courts interpretation of fairness in applying this principle is, in any event, incompatible with the Data Protection Act 1998 (in part because the Court has too narrow a conception of privacy); that the Court errs in holding that neither anonymisation of personal data nor use of anonymous data falls under the Data Protection Act; and that the Courts insensitivity to the vulnerability that leads patients to disclose information about themselves to health professionals for their treatment, leads it to misidentify the basis of the duty of confidence in such disclosures. The Court of Appeals reasoning does not clarify the duty of confidence, but virtually abolishes it in the face of competing commercial and research interests.

My Body, My Body Parts, My Property?

This paper challenges the view, commonly held inbiolaw and bioethics, that there can be no proprietaryrights in our own bodies or body parts. Whether thestarting point is the post-intervention informedconsent regime of Article 22 of the Convention ofHuman Rights and Biomedicine or the traditional(exclusionary) understanding of private property it isargued that property in our own bodies or body partsis presupposed. Although these arguments do notdemonstrate that there is property of this kind (forthat, a full-scale justification of the institution ofprivate property would be required), they suggestnevertheless that the commonly held view has animmanent property logic that has not yet been drawnout or appreciated.

Data Protection and Genetics: Medical Research and the Public Good

This paper addresses three questions: (1) whether genetic data and genetic material are subject to data protection law; (2) whether genetics research for medical purposes constitutes a public good; and, having answered yes to both questions, (3) to what extent, and in what way, the value of medical genetics research as a public good justifies its exemption from or within data protection law. Using the privacy framework under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Gewirths concept of a generic condition of agency, the paper suggests a model for assessing what constitutes a proportionate degree of exemption. Applying this model, which allows the key considerations on each side to be given their full due, it argues that privacy/data protection values and medical research values are better viewed as being co-operative and mutually reinforcing rather than conflicting.

Korsgaard v. Gewirth on Universalization: Why Gewirthians are Kantians and Kantians Ought to be Gewirthians

Christine Korsgaard claims that Gewirth’s argument for morality fails to demonstrate that there is a categorically binding principle on action because it operates with the assumption that reasons for action are essentially private. This attribution is unfounded and Korsgaard’s own argument for moral obligation, in its appeal to Wittgenstein’s Private Language Argument to establish that reasons for action are essentially public, is misdirected and unnecessary. Gewirth’s attempt to demonstrate a strictly a priori connection between a moral principle and the concept of being an agent as such is essentially Kantian, and recognizing that the Principle of Hypothetical Imperatives is categorically binding requires Kantians to accept that Gewirth’s Principle of Generic Consistency is the supreme practical principle.

When is personal data rendered anonymous? Interpreting Recital 26 of Directive 95/46/EC.

Outlines the scope of Council Directive 95/46. Discusses whether the principles of data protection apply to data rendered anonymous. Examines the difficulty in applying sufficient protection to data once it has been rendered anonymous and stresses the importance of data controllers informing data subjects of any anticipated anonymisation.

Attitudes toward Embryo Experimentation in Europe

The measurement and analysis of public perceptions of science and technology have gradually gained in importance as an input to the design of public policies and the regulation of scientific and technological advances. Although science and technology had traditionally remained closed to the formal intervention of the lay public, the last two decades have brought about an increase of public participation in various forms, ranging from consensus conferences (Joss and Durant 1995, Einsiedel et al. 2001) to direct consultation of the public (referenda, see Bonfadelli et al. 2002), and sometimes simply policy-makers’ sensitivity to the public’s views and preferences, as gleaned from studies of public opinion.