Abstract
The Constitutional Treaty1 was thought to address the new challenges occurring in front of the enlarged Europe in relation to the rapidly changing international political, economic, social and cultural circumstances. In this respect, the problem of the new quality of the European Union is being repeatedly disputed. If the EU is to be something more than an arrangement for inter-state cooperation, the Union has to be able to act rationally on a collective basis, in a way that different interests or preferences will give priority to seeking agreement over self-interest maximization. The question of whether the EU envisaged in the Constitutional Treaty represents a deeper form of integration can be answered by examining its ability to achieve consensus on conflicting issues and to form a common will about how to solve common problems.2 The field in which the most controversies arise nowadays is that of biotechnology and biomedicine.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, Dec. 16, 2004, 2004 O.J. (C 310) 53 (hereinafter CT).
E.O. Eriksen, The question of Deliberative Supranationalism in the EU, 43 (Arena, Working Paper No. 99, 1999), available at <www.arena.uio.no/publications/wp99_4.htm>.
Juergen Habermas, The future of the human nature 25 (2003).
Deryck Beyleveld & Roger Brownsword, Human dignity in bioethics and biolaw 6 (2004).
Beth Singer, Pragmatism, Rights and Democracy 127 (1999) (quoting John Dewey, Liberalism and Social Action (1935).
Konrad Zweigert & Hein Koetz, An Introduction to Comparative Law 68 (1998).
Beyleveld & Brownsward, supra Roger Brownsword, Human dignity in bioethics and biolaw (2004) note 4, at 1–47.
Id. at 1.
Id. at 34.
The European Convention, Updated Explanations relating to the text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, 828 CONV 1 (July 18, 2003).
Id. at 6.
European Union Committee, 14th Report: The Future of Europe: “Social Europe,” 2003–14, HL Paper 79 (2003) at £ 13, available at <http://hcll.hclibrary.parliament.uk/notes/sps/snsp-02906.pdf>.
A.T.J.M. Jacobs, The fences surrounding the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the new European Constitution 8 (2004), available at <www.tilburguniversity.nl/faculties/frw/research/schoordijk/ctld>. (P.J.G. Kapteyn).
Id. at 4.
Jacobs, supra note 14, at 5.
HL Paper, supra note 13, at para. 84.
Habermas, supra note 3, at 25.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, art. 10(1), 5 E.T.S. 13.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine (Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine), Apr. 4, 1997, art. 15, 164 E.T.S. 5.
Explanatory Report to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, Dec. 17, 1996, art. 15, 164 E.T.S. 17, available at <www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Reports/Html/164.htm>.
The Treaty establishing the European Community, Dec. 24, 2002, 2002 O.J. (C 325) 163 [hereinafter EC Treaty], available at <www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/treaties/dat/12002E/htm/C_2002325EN.003301.html>.
Louise Irving, Creating an Ethical Framework for Stem Cell Research in Europe, 305 BioNews 1 2 (2005), available at <www.BioNews.org.uk/commentaries.lasso> (quoting John Harris).
Id. at 3.
The analysis is mostly based on Beyeveld & Brownsword supra, Roger Brownsword, Human dignity in bioethics and biolaw 6 (2004) note 4.
Eriksen, supra note 2, at 36.
Paton v. Great Britain, App No. 8416/79, 19 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 244, para. 24 (1980).
See, supra, note 24 at 5.
Vo v. France, 2004-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. para. 80.
Id. at para. 85.
Habermas, supra note 3, at 33.
Case C-377/98, Netherlands v. EP and the Council, 2001 E.C.R. I-7079, paras. 199–215.
The case of PGD raises some confusion as to who is actually the patient. Is it the mother or the embryo? The answer to this question depends largely on the concept of the patient-doctor relation. A liberal approach will see the mother as a patient, whereas a more restrictive one will speak in favour of an embryo. See Zbigniew Szawarski, Ethics and prenatal screening, in: Biopolitik grenzenlos — Stimmen aus Polen 107–121 (Heidi Hofmann ed., 2005).
Case C-377/98, Netherlands v. EP and the Council, 2001 E.C.R. I-7079, paras. 199–215.
Beyleveld & Brownsword, supra Roger Brownsword, Human dignity in bioethics and biolaw (2004) note 4, at 217.
The European Convention, Updated Explanations relating to the text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, 828 CONV 1 (July 18, 2003).
Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings, Jan. 12, 1998, No. 168, 1 E.T.S. 2, available at <http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=168&CM=l&DF=&CL=ENG>.
Beyleveld & Brownsword, supra Roger Brownsword, Human dignity in bioethics and biolaw (2004) note 4, at 248.
Habermas, supra note 3, at 48.
Habermas, supra note 3, at 32 (quoting W van den Daele, Die Natürlichkeit des Menschen als Kriterium und Schranke technischer Eingriffe (2000)).
Habermas, supra note 3, at 109.
Lords Select Committee on the EU, 6th Report: The Future Status of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, 2003-3, H.L. Paper 48 at 98–99.
The European Convention, 17 Working group 2, “Incorporation of the Charter/Accession to the ECHR”, Modalities and consequences of incorporation into the Treaties of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and accession of the Community/Union to the ECHR 22,116 CONV 02 (fun. 18, 2002).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Max-Planck-Gessellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Krajewska, A. (2006). Fundamental Rights Concerning Biomedicine in the Constitutional Treaty and Their Effect on the Diverse Legal Systems of Member States. In: Dann, P., Rynkowski, M. (eds) The Unity of the European Constitution. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 186. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-37721-4_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-37721-4_22
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-35450-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-37721-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)