Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public consultation in ethics an experiment in representative ethics

  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Genome Canada has funded a research project to evaluate the usefulness of different forms of ethical analysis for assessing the moral weight of public opinion in the governance of genomics. This paper will describe a role of public consultation for ethical analysis and a contribution of ethical analysis to public consultation and the governance of genomics/biotechnology. Public consultation increases the robustness of ethical analysis with a more diverse and rich accounts experiences. Consultation must be carefully and respectfully designed to generate sufficiently diverse and rich accounts of moral experiences. Since dominant groupstend to define ethical or policy issues in a manner that excludes some interests or perspectives, it is important to identify the range of interests that diverse publics hold before defining the issue and scope of a consultation. Similarly, a heavy policy focus and pressures to commercialize products risk oversimplification of the discussion and the premature foreclosure of ethical dialogue. Consequently, a significant contribution of ethical dialogue strengthened by social analysis is to consider the context and non-policy use of power to govern genomics and to sustain social debate on enduring ethical issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Toulmin S. The tyranny of principles. Hastings Cent Rep 1981;11:31–39.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Jonsen AR, Toulmin S. The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral reasoning. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arras JD. Getting down to cases: The revival of casuistry in bioethics. J Med Philos 1991;16:29–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jonsen AR. Casuistry: An alternative or complement to principles? Kennedy Inst Ethics J 1995;5(3):237–251.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moreno JD. Deciding together: Bioethics and moral consensus. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jonsen AR. The birth of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Paul D. From reproductive responsibility to reproductive autonomy. In: Parker LS, Ankeny RA, editors. Mutating concepts evolving disciplines: Genetics, medicine and society; 2002. p. 87–105.

  8. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff 1997;26(4):303–350.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Renn O. Three decades of risk research: Accomplishments and new challenges. J Risk Research 1998;11:49–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Douglas M. Risk and blame. Essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biasies. Science 1974;185:1124–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Schrader-Frechette KS. Risk and rationality. Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wynne B. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expertlay knowledge divide. In: Lash S, Szerszynski B, Wynne B, editors. Risk, environment and modernity, London: Sage; 1996. p. 44–83.

    Google Scholar 

  14. ansey J. The prospects for governing biotechnology in Canada [online] 2003 [cited 2004 January 7]. Available from: http:// www.ethics.ubc.ca/workingpapers/deg/deg001.pdt

  15. McDaniels T. Ten propositions for untangling descriptive and prescriptive lessons in risk perception findings. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 1998;59.

  16. Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P, editors. Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Caulfield T, Burgess MM, Williams-Jones B, Bailey M-A, Chadwick R, Cho M, et al. Providing genetic testing throught he private sector: A view from Canada. Isuma 2001;2(3):72–81.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Amos A. The new genetics and health: Mobilizing lay expertise. Public Underst Sci. 1998;7:41–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Leroux T, Hirtle M, Fortin L-N. An overview of public consultation mechanisms developed to address the ethical and social issues raised by biotechnology. J Consumer Policy 1998;21:445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mitcham C. Why the public should participate in technical decision making. In: Von Schomberg R, editor. Democratising technology. Hengelo: International Centre for Human and Public Affairs; 1999. p. 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sclove RE. Democracy and technology. New York: The Guilford Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sclove RE. Design criteria and political strategies for democratizing technology. In: Von Schomberg R, editor. Democratising technology. Hengelo: International Centre for Human and Public Affairs; 1999. p. 17–38.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Zaal R, Leyedesdorff L. Amsterdam science shop and its influence on university research: The effects of ten years of dealing with nonacademic questions. Science and Public Policy 1987;14(6):310–316.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Buchanan A, Brock DW, Daniels N, Wikler D. From chance to choice: Genetics and justice: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

  25. Burgess MM. Part iii: Conclusion: Ethical issues in the delivery of health care services. In: Coward H, Ratanakul P, editors. A crosscultural dialogue on health care ethics. Waterloo, Ontrio: Wilfrid Laurier University Press; 1999. p. 207–209.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rodney P, Pauly B, Burgess MM. Our theoretical landscape: Complementary approaches to health care ethics. In: Storch J, Rodney P, Starzomski R, editors. Toward a moral horizon: Nursing ethics for leadership and practice. Toronto: Pearson; 2004. p. 77–97.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ramsden IR. Cultural safety and nursing education in Aotearoa and Te Waipounamu [Ph.D. Thesis]. Wellington: Victoria University; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kelly S. Public bioethics and publics: Consensus, boundaries and participation in biomedical science policy. Sci Technol Human Values 2003;28(3):339–364.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Burgess MM, d'Agincourt-Canning L. Genetic testing for hereditary disease: Attending to relational responsibility. J Clin Ethics 2002;12(4):361–372.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hoffmaster B, editor. Bioethics in social context. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Burgess MM. Starting on the right foot: Public consultation to inform issue definition in genome policy [online] 2003 [cited 2004 March 31]. Available from. http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/workingpapers/deg/deg002.pdf

  32. UK Government. The advisory and regulatory framework for biotechnology: Report from the government's review [online] 1999 [cited 2004 March 16]. Available from: http://www.ost.gov.uk/policy/issues/biotech report/index.htm

  33. Toi te Taiao: New Zealand Bioethics Council. [online] [cited 2004 March 22]. Available from. http://www.bioethics.org.nz/

  34. Province of Ontario. Report to premiers — genetics, testing and gene patenting: Charting new territory in healthcare [online] 2002 [cited 2003 February 20]. Available from: www.gov.on.ca/health/english/ pub/ministry/geneticsrep02/report_e.pdf

  35. Australian Law Reform Commission. Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia [online] 2003 [cited 2004 March 22]. Available from. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/ publications/reports/96/

  36. 6, Perri. The governance of technology. White Paper prepared for the workshop ‘Democratic Governance of Technological Change in an Era of Globalisation’. London; 2003.

  37. Jackson M. An exquisite politeness: The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification and the redefining of the treaty of Waitangi [online] 2001 [cited 2004 March 16]. Available from: http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/redefi.htm//ref6

  38. Gaskell G, Allum N, Bauer M, Jackson J, Howard S, Lindsey N. Ambivalent GM nation? Public attitudes to biotechnology in the UK, 1991–2002. Life Sciences in European Society Report. London: London School of Economics and Political Science; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. W. Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics, University of British Columbia, Canada

    Michael M. Burgess PhD (Professor and Chair in Biomedical Ethics)

  2. The Department of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Canada

    Michael M. Burgess PhD (Professor and Chair in Biomedical Ethics)

Authors
  1. Michael M. Burgess PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burgess, M.M. Public consultation in ethics an experiment in representative ethics. J. Bioethical Inquiry 1, 4–13 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02448901

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02448901

Keywords

Search

Navigation