International Bioethics Committees: Conditions for a Good Deliberation

Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 70)


One of the most relevant effects of bioethics emergence has been the spread of deliberative bodies on bioethics matters. Their features are very wide, depending upon the entity that creates them, their regional scope, the issues they deal with, the ruling strength of their agreements, etc. Among them, international bioethics committees are particularly relevant due to the huge impact of their work on global public opinion, as well as on the policies approved by governments all around the world. These bodies are presumed to adopt their decisions, as well as the other bioethics committees, after deliberating on facts and values (Gracia 2001).


World Medical Association Bioethic Committee Legal Instrument Citizen Education Additional Protocol 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Andorno, Roberto. 2007. Global bioethics at UNESCO: In defense of the universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. Journal of Medical Ethics 33(3): 150–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andorno, Roberto. 2009. Human dignity and human rights as a common ground for a global bioethics. Journal of Philosophy and Medicine 34(3): 223–240. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhp023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aparisi, Angela. 2005. The globalization of bioethics: The tasks of international commissions. Georgetown Journal of International Law 37(1): 141–151.Google Scholar
  4. Bellver, Vicente. 2006. Por una bioética razonable. Medios de comunicación, comités de ética y Derecho. Comares: Granada.Google Scholar
  5. Christian, Byk, and Gérard Mémeteau. 1996. Le droit des comités d’éthique. Paris: Lacassaigne-ESKA.Google Scholar
  6. Commission Decision. 2010. Commission decision of December 23rd, 2009, on the renewal of the mandate of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (2010/1/EU). Official Journal of the European Union, 5.1.2010, L 1/8–9.Google Scholar
  7. Council of Europe. 1949. Statute of the council of Europe. Accessed on 22 May 2014.
  8. Council of Europe. 2011. Resolution CM/Res (2011) 24 on intergovernmental committees and subordinate bodies, their terms of reference and working methods (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers, on 9th November 2011, at the 1125th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).Google Scholar
  9. Decision of the President of the European Commission. 2011. Decision of the President of the European commission of 10th Jan 2011, for the appointment of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies members for their fourth mandate (2011/C 12/04). Official Journal of the European Union, 15.1.2011, C 12/9.Google Scholar
  10. DH-BIO. 2013. Terms of reference, committee of bioethics (DH-BIO) of the Council of Europe. DH-BIO/INF (2013) 3.Google Scholar
  11. EGE Rules of Procedure 2011. Rules of Procedure of the European Group on Ethics (EGE) 2011–2016. Accessed on 14 May 2014.
  12. Gracia, Diego. 2001. La deliberación moral. Boletín de la Academia Chilena de Medicina XXXVIII: 29–45.Google Scholar
  13. IBC. 1998. Statutes of the International Committee on Bioethics of the UNESCO. Adopted by the Executive Board at its 154th Session, on 7th May 1998 (154 EX/Dec. 8.4).Google Scholar
  14. IBC. 2001. Rules of Procedure of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IBC). SHS-503/01/CIB-8/4. Paris, Nov 23rd, 2001. Accessed on 15 May 2014.
  15. Kutukdjian, G.B. 1994. UNESCO international bioethics committee. The Hastings Center Report 24(2): 3–4.Google Scholar
  16. Landman, Willem A., and Udo Schuklenk. 2005. UNESCO ‘declares’ universals on bioethics and human rights – Many unexpected universal truths unearthed by UN body. Developing World Bioethics 5(2): iii–iv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Le Bris, Sonia, Maria Bartha Knoppers, and Lori Luther. 1997. International bioethics, human genetics, and normativity. Houston Law Review 33: 1363–1396.Google Scholar
  18. Macklin, Ruth. 2003. Dignity is a useless concept. BMJ 327: 1419–1420. doi: Scholar
  19. Millum, Joseph, David Wendler, and Ezekiel J. Emanuel. 2013. The 50th anniversary of the declaration of Helsinki. Progress, but many remaining challenges. JAMA 310(20): 2143–2144. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oviedo Convention. 1997. 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, Oviedo 1.4.1997, Accessed on 15th May 2014.
  21. Parsa-Parsi, Ramin, Jeff Blackmer, Hans-Jörg Ehni, Torunn Janbu, Otmar Kloiber, and Urban Wiesing. 2013. Reconsidering the declaration of Helsinki. The Lancet 382(9900): 1246–1247. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62094-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Romeo Casabona, C. 2002. El Convenio Europeo sobre Derechos Humanos y Biomedicina: sus características y sus repercusiones en el Derecho español. In El Convenio Europeo sobre Derechos Humanos y Biomedicina. Su entrada en vigor en el ordenamiento jurídico español, ed. C. Romeo Casabona, 1–18. Granada: Chair on Law and Human Genome Comares, Bilbao.Google Scholar
  23. Romeo Casabona, C. 2014. La construcción del Derecho aplicable a la genética y a la biotecnología humana a lo largo de las dos últimas décadas. Revista de Derecho y Genoma Humano. Extraordinary edition: 27–52.Google Scholar
  24. Roscam Abbing, H. 1998. The convention on human rights and biomedicine: An appraisal of the council of Europe convention. The European Journal of Health Law 5(4): 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Salako, Solomon E. 2008. Informed consent under the European convention on biomedicine and the UNESCO declaration on bioethics. Medicine and Law 30(1): 101–113.Google Scholar
  26. WHO. 2010. Global network of WHO collaborating centers for bioethics. Terms of reference. Adopted on Wednesday 26 May 2010, Accessed on 1 June 2014.
  27. WHO. 2011. Standards and operational guidance for ethics review of health-related research with human participants, Accessed on 1 June 2014.
  28. Williams, John R. 2004. The promise and limits of international bioethics: Lessons from the recent revision of the declaration of Helsinki. Journal International de Bioéthique 15: 31–42. doi: 10.3917/jib.151.0031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Williams, John R. 2005. The ethics activities of the world medical association. Science and Engineering Ethics 11: 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yesley, M. 2005. What’s in a name? The Hastings Center Report 35(2): 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy of LawUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations