Markus Rothhaar

Human dignity and human rights in bioethics: the Kantian approach

The concept of human dignity plays an important role in the public discussion about ethical questions concerning modern medicine and biology. At the same time, there is a widespread skepticism about the possibility to determine the content and the claims of human dignity. The article goes back to Kantian Moral Philosophy, in order to show that human dignity has in fact a determinable content not as a norm in itself, but as the principle and ground of human rights and any deontological norms in biomedical ethics. When it comes to defining the scope of human dignity, i.e., the question which entities are protected by human dignity, Kant clearly can be found on the “pro life”-side of the controversy. This, however, is the result of some specific implications of Kant’s transcendental approach that may be put into question.

Medicine, human rights and ethics: paths to universal rights

The core of global practical ethics consists in the international adherence to human rights. The medical and healthcare communities stand at the forefront of fundamental challenges. In 2008 the 60th anniversaries of the ‘‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’’ and the ‘‘Declaration of Geneva’’ adopted by the World Medical Association were celebrated. In September 1948, the Second General Assembly of the World Medical Association adopted in Geneva a declaration on the ethics of the medical profession as an up-to-date ‘‘revision of the Hippocratic Oath.’’ The Declaration of Geneva thus became one of the most important sources for medical ethics, and an integral part of the professional code for medical personnel. Only weeks later—on December 10th 1948—the ‘‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’’ was promulgated by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the Parisian Palais de Chaillot as the foundation for international humanitarian law. Article 11 postulated: ‘‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.’’ The historical proximity of the two declarations was no accident; both were clearly reactions to the violations of human rights and human dignity under the National Socialist regime from 1933 to 1945. Ever since, the ‘‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’’ has been the basis for international humanitarian law and served to give lasting protection to the individual. Health is an essential requirement for the UNO’s aims of

Contra: Soll das sogenannte „Gene Editing“ mittels CRISPR/Cas9-Technologie an menschlichen Embryonen erforscht werden?

Gene Editing durch CRISPR/Cas9 ist nichts prinzipiell Neues, sondern eine neue Technik der Genmanipulation. Daher wirft es keine substantiell neuen ethischen Fragen auf. Die alten Fragen jedoch, die es aufwirft, haben es nach wie vor in sich. Und so, wie sich mit Gene Editing mit größerer Präzision Gene herausschneiden und einfügen lassen, lässt es die damit verbundenen ethischen Probleme in einem schärferen Licht erscheinen. Vor allem aber macht die jüngste Zulassung dieser Methode für Experimente an menschlichen Embryonen in Großbritannien die ethischen Probleme in neuer Weise drängend. Sie verlassen die Sphäre „akademischer“ Überlegungen und werden in unübersehbarer Weise zu einer akuten gesellschaftlichen Herausforderung. Die ethischen Fragen, die durch die Erforschung des Gene Editing aufgeworfen werden, betreffen vor allem zwei Punkte: den moralischen Status der dabei zerstörten Embryonen und die damit sich eröffnenden Möglichkeiten der Keimbahnmanipulation. Eine Bemerkung zum ersten Punkt: Die Erforschung des Gene Editing bei den derzeit laufenden und geplanten Experimenten sieht im großen Maßstab die Vernichtung der genetisch veränderten Embryonen vor. Man muss menschlichen Embryonen in vitro sicherlich nicht unbedingt einen starken Schutzanspruch zugestehen, um in dieser massiven Instrumentalisierung und Vernichtung einen fragwürdigen Umgang mit frühen Stufen menschlichen Lebens zu sehen. Der Fokus unserer Stellungnahme liegt jedoch auf dem zweiten Punkt, da sich hier genuine Fragen stellen, die auch unabhängig von der notorisch umstrittenen

Species, Potentiality and Their Manipulation

Among the arguments put forward in the ongoing debate regarding the moral status of human embryos, the arguments of potentiality and species membership seem to be the most widespread and popular. Both of these arguments directly point to the relationship between nature and normativity. As such, they are only convincing if one assumes that species membership and developmental potential provide only criteria and not the very reason for moral status. In light of this, the article examines proposals made by Kant, Fichte, and Spaemann for how to understand the relationship between the reason and the criteria of moral status and contrasts them with recent developments in genetics that have made species membership and embryo potential, to some extent, manipulable.