Abstract
Drawing on Lennart Nordenfelt’s distinction between the four distinct senses of dignity, I elucidate the meaning of dignity in the context of research involving human subjects. I acknowledge that different interpretations of the personal senses of dignity may be acceptable in human subject research, but that inherent dignity (Menschenwürde) is not open to interpretation in the same way. In order to map out the grounds for interpreting dignity, I examine the unique application of the principle of respect for dignity in Canada’s research ethics guidelines. These guidelines are unique because they consider dignity to be a foundational concept and the protection of the dignity of research subjects is regarded as a measure that prevents “the impoverishment of humanity as a whole”. While the conception of humanity invoked here is incomplete, Canada’s research ethics guidelines nevertheless represent a more European approach to biomedical policy. Finally, in order to correct a pervasive blind spot in contemporary policy on research involving human subjects, I sketch a functional model for attributing inherent dignity that avoids the untenable connotations of speciesism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baylis F., J.S. Robert: 2003, Crossing Species Boundaries. American Journal of Bioethics 3(3), 1–13
Beauchamp T., J. Childress: 2001, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Bostrum N.: 2005, In Defence of Posthuman Dignity. Bioethics 19(3), 202–214
Burns L.: 2007, Gunther von Hagens’ Bodyworlds: Selling Beautiful Education. American Journal of Bioethics 7(4), 12–23.
Burns, L., M. Lanoix, R. Melnychuk and B. Pauly: 2007, ‹Race, Science and a Novel: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue’, Developing World Bioethics (Online Early). doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2007.00195.x
Carr, D.: 1991. Educating the Virtues: An Essay on the Philosophical Psychology of Moral Development and Education. London: Routledge
Caulfield T., R. Brownsword: 2005, Human Dignity: A Guide to Policy Making in the Biotechnology Era?. Nature Reviews Genetics 7, 72–76
Chochinov H.M.: 2002, Dignity-conserving Care. JAMA 287(17), 2253–2260
Coward H., P. Ratanakul: 1998, A Cross-Cultural Dialogue on Health Care Ethics. Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press
Edgar A.: 2004, A Response to Nordenfelt’s “The Varieties of Dignity”. Health Care Analysis 12(2), 83–89
Fukuyama F. 2002, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York: Picador.
Gallagher A.: 2004, Dignity and Respect for Dignity – Two Key Health Professional Values: Implications for Nursing Practice. Nursing Ethics 11, 587–599
Gewirth A.: 1998, Self-fulfillment. Princeton: Princeton University. Press.
Habermas J.: 1990, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. In: C. Lenhardt, S.W. Nicholsen (eds.), Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: MIT Press
Habermas J.: 2003, The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge: Polity Press
Hagendijk R., A. Irwin: 2006, Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe. Minerva 44, 167–184
Häyry M.: 2004, Another Look at Dignity. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 13, 7–14
Horton R.: 2004, Rediscovering Human Dignity. The Lancet 364 (9439), 1081–1085
Jonsen A., S. Toulmin: 1988, The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning. Los Angeles: University of California Press
Kant I.: 1996, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. In: M.J. Gregor (ed.), Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kass L.: 1998, The Wisdom of Repugnance. In: L. Kass, J.Q. Wilson (eds.), The Ethics of Human Cloning. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.
Kaufert, J., K.C. Glass, W.L. Freeman and L. LaBine: 2004, Background Paper on Issues of Group, Community, or First Nation Consent in Research. Commissioned for the Aboriginal Ethics Policy Development Project by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Institute for Aboriginal Peoples’ Health. Available at: <http://www.umanitoba.ca/centres/cahr/cahr-research/research_ publications/research_publications_reports.html>
Macklin R.: 2003, Dignity is a Useless Concept. BMJ 327, 1419–1420
Misak C.: 2000, Truth, Politics, Morality: Pragmatism and Deliberation. New York: Routledge
Müller-Hill B.: 2001, Genetics of Susceptibility to Tuberculosis: Mengele’s Experiments in Auschwitz. Nature Reviews Genetics 2: 631–634
Nencini P.: 2004, The Shaman and the Rave Party: Social Pharmacology of Ecstasy. Substance Use and Misuse 37, 923–939
Nordenfelt L.: 2003, Dignity of the elderly: an introduction. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6, 199–101
Nordenfelt L.: 2004, The varieties of dignity. Health Care Analysis 12(2), 69–81
Nussbaum M.: 2006, Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. The Tanner lectures on human values. Cambridge MA.: Harvard University Press
Pellegrino E.: 2005, Some Things Ought Never Be Done: Moral Absolutes in Clinical Ethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 26, 469–486
Pluhar E.B.: 1995, Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Nonhuman Animals. Durham: Duke University Press
Prusak B.G.: 2005, Rethinking “Liberal Eugenics”: Reflections and Questions on Habermas on Bioethics. Hastings Center Report 35(6), 31–42.
Pullman D.: 2001, Universalism, Particularism, and the Ethics of Dignity. Christian Bioethics 7(3), 333–358
Rendtorff J.D.: 2002, Basic Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw: Autonomy, Dignity, Integrity and Vulnerability – Towards a Foundation of Bioethics and Biolaw. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5(3), 235–244
Schachter O.: 1983, Human Dignity as a Normative Concept. The American Journal of International Law 77(4), 848–854
Seidelman W.: 2000, The Legacy of Academic Medicine and Human Exploitation in the Third Reich. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 43(3), 325–334
Shultziner, D.: 2003, ‹Human Dignity – Functions and Meanings’, Global Jurist Topics 3(3): Article 3. Available at: <http://www.bepress.com/gj/topics/vol3/iss3/art3>
Singer, P.: 2003, ‹Animal Liberation at 30’, The New York Review of Books 50(8)
Söderberg A., F. Gilje, A. Norberg: 1997, Dignity in Situations of Ethical Difficulty in Intensive Care. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing 13, 135–144
Ullrich, D.: 2003, ‹Concurring Visions: Human Dignity in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany’, Global Jurist Frontiers. 3(1): Article 1
Policies and reports
Canada, Department of Justice: 2004, Assisted Human Reproduction Act, c.2. Available at: <http://laws.justice. gc.ca/en/A-13.4/2389.html>
Canada, Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies: 1993, Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing.
Canada, Standing Committee on Health: 2001, Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services – Canada Publishing.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: 1998, Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. (With 2000, 2002 and 2005 amendments). Available at: <http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/policy statement/policystatement.cfm>
Canadian Institutes of Health Research: 2006, Updated Guidelines for Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Research, June 28, 2006. Available at: <http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/31488.html>
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences and WHO: 1982, International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. (With 1993 and 2002 amendments.) Geneva: WHO. Available at: <http://www.cioms.ch/frame_guidelines_nov_2002. htm>
Department of Health and Human Services: 1982, 45 CFR 46 (Revised 2005). Available at: <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm
Health Canada: 2006, A Chronology of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Available at: <http://www.hc-sc. gc.ca/hl-vs/reprod/hc-sc/general/chronolog_e.html>
International Military Tribunal: 1949, ‹Nuremberg Code’, in: Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law 10(2). Washington: US Government Printing Office, pp. 181–182
Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration): 1999, 1 S.C.R. 497
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research: 1979, The Belmont Report. Available at: <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm>
United Nations: 1948, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UNESCO: 1997, Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. Available at: <http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13177&URL_ DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html>
World Medical Association: 1964, Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Including Human Subjects. (With 1975, 1983, 1989, 1996, 2000, 2002, and 2004 amendments.) Availabe at: <http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm>
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Burns, L. What is the scope for the interpretation of dignity in research involving human subjects?. Med Health Care Philos 11, 191–208 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-007-9107-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-007-9107-x