ABSTRACT
Toi te Taiao: the Bioethics Council was established in 2002 to enhance New Zealand's understanding of the cultural, ethical and spiritual aspects of biotechnology and ensure that the use of biotechnology has regard for the values held by New Zealanders. In 2005, the Bioethics Council focused on xenotransplantation. A series of dialogue events were held, the public had the opportunity to participate in an online discussion forum and were able to make written submissions. There is worldwide interest in the potential of this biotechnology to cure or alleviate a number of serious health conditions. However, there are concerns about the risks, especially the potential for cross species infection. Such risks have not yet been reliably quantified, but any decision about safety and effectiveness is also about cultural, ethical and spiritual factors. This paper considers some of the outcomes from the dialogue process and the reflections of the Bioethics Council on these. It contrasts the process with that of classic consultation and concludes that, although the process may be more costly and time consuming than the traditional consultative approach, it enables the role of science to be appreciated in its full context, including appreciation of the uncertainties of natural systems and the relevance of cultural, ethical and spiritual human values. It will be suggested that the public are able to interweave ethical concerns with scientific knowledge to engage in meaningful dialogue, resulting in useful recommendations.
Subject(s)
Transplantation, Heterologous/ethics , Animals , Bioethical Issues , Humans , New Zealand , Social Values , Technology Assessment, Biomedical/ethics , Technology Assessment, Biomedical/legislation & jurisprudence , Transplantation, Heterologous/adverse effects , Transplantation, Heterologous/ethnology , Transplantation, Heterologous/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
Most babies born in New Zealand have a blood sample taken shortly after birth for the purposes of certain screening tests. The samples are retained indefinitely. This paper considers whether such samples are the property of the child and whether the present changes in the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill and the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights of 1996 are sufficient to resolve the issues. The paper expresses concern about the delegation of decision-making in this area to ethics committees.
