Abstract
This response addresses criticisms in this journal of an Editorial written by Willem Landman and Udo Schuklenk. I demonstrate that the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights is in crucial aspects deficient, despite attempts in this journal to defend the Declaration against its critics. I focus on individual versus societal interests, research ethics, informed consent and the use of “human dignity” to illustrate the weaknesses of the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. This article concludes with reflections on what documents such as the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights ought to be called to avoid the mislabelling of what essentially are policy documents.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andorno, R. 2007. Global bioethics at UNESCO: In defence of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 150–154.
Benatar, D. 2005. The trouble with universal declarations. Developing World Bioethics 5: 220–224.
Benatar, D. 2007. Moral theories have some role in teaching of applied ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 671–672.
Goodin, R. 1981. The political theories of choice and dignity. American Philosophical Quarterly 18(2): 91–100.
Landman, W., and U. Schuklenk. 2005. UNESCO “declares” universals on bioethics and human rights—many unexpected universal truths unearthed by UN body. Developing World Bioethics 5(3): iii–vi.
Levitt, M., and H. Zwart. 2009. Bioethics: An export product? Reflections on hands-on involvement in exploring the “external” validity of international bioethical declarations. Bioethical Inquiry 6: 367–377.
Macklin, R. 2003. Dignity is a useless concept. BMJ 327: 1419–1420.
Palca, J. 1989. AIDS drugs trials enter new age. Science 246: 19–21.
Pullman, D. 1996. Dying with dignity and the death of dignity. Health Law Journal 4: 197–219.
Schroeder, D. 2008. Dignity: Two riddles and four concepts. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 17: 230–238.
Schuklenk, U. 1998. Drug testing and approval in case of people with catastrophic illness: Ethical issues. Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs 15: 145–157.
Schuklenk, U. 2004. The standard of care debate: Against the myth of an international consensus opinion. Journal of Medical Ethics 30: 194–197.
Schuklenk, U., and A. Pacholczyk. 2010. Dignity’s “wooly uplift”. Bioethics 24(2): ii.
Williamson, L. 2008. The quality of bioethics debate: Implications for clinical ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 34: 357–360.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the reviewers of this journal for constructive criticisms of an earlier version of this paper. Ricardo Smalling and Andy Miah kindly assisted with manuscript preparation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schuklenk, U. Defending the Indefensible. Bioethical Inquiry 7, 83–88 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-010-9209-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-010-9209-7