Charities Commission Registration CC22512

Bioethics in 2004 - Our challenge for the year

Guest Editorial contributed to the BioScience News & Advocate 29 January 2004

The years 2000 to 2003 certainly were New Zealand's triennium for intense debate on genetic modification in particular, but also on some other areas of important non-GM biotechnology such as reproductive technology, which became embroiled and sometimes confused in the debates.

With the lifting of our moratorium and passing of new laws to regulate this technology, and pending law changes here in assisted human reproductive technology, the debate will inevitably shift to a new arena.  Bioethics is sure to be a central focus of much debate from this point on.

Some argue that this is where the debate on genetic modification and other biotechnology should have occurred all along, rather than at the political level that was so prominent. That political gamble of "GE-Free" by opponents had such high stakes, that it's not just a significant defeat for them, but it prevented a more rational debate on the important ethical consideration. The phrase "unethical" was bandied about with almost reckless abandon in the political debate.

Perhaps the time is now right for bioethics to be debated more fully, without the heavy influence of the background political debate. The role of the Bioethics Council is sure to stimulate these debates as it gets its programme of community engagement under way. Earlier this month the Council published 14 contributed essays on the ethical, spiritual and cultural aspects of transgenics using human genes. These are now available on the Council's website (from the National Library of New Zealand's National Digital Heritage Archive).

The national committee responsible for advising the Minister of Health on assisted human reproduction, will also be discussing the procedure of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, and when NZORD holds its conference in May, bioethics certainly will be a major theme.

I certainly hope this year will enable a sharper focus on how all the modern biotechnology that science and medicine has to offer, can be applied in ways that meet the key ethical principles of justice, benefits, minimising harm and promoting autonomy for people.

A continued worry of mine is that some will approach the bioethics debates with rigid and inflexible positions, reminiscent of a high stakes win or lose political position. If my summer break reading of two books and a dozen journal articles on the topic has taught me anything, surely the key theme is that ethical debates are about the need to resolve the difficult questions in a way that allows their fair application to particular people or situations.

Taking global views is an important part of analysing ethics, but such views could lead to unjust application unless modified and informed by the needs and particularities of people and situations.

If we remember that bioethics requires resolution and decision making, rather than endless delay because it seems too big or too hard, then I'm sure those people waiting to receive the benefits of modern biotechnology, will enjoy them in a timely and ethically robust manner, with society's broad interests well protected.

John Forman
Executive Director