Abstract
Biomedical sciences are constantly raising new and very specific questions related with ethics and law. Since these problems often have a universal dimension, international bioethics committees have provided guidance criteria to help focus and reasonably resolve ethical and legal issues beyond the limited scope at the state level, as well as governance related matters. This paper analyses the functions and competences of the most relevant committees currently in place: Committee of Bioethics (DH-BIO) of the Council of Europe, the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IBC) and the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE), which advises the Chair of the European Commission and the European Commissioners.
As a result, we conclude that International and supranational committees of bioethics should possess namely formative and training qualification, multidisciplinarity, independence, pluralism and transparency. Some criteria are provided in the light to improve their work and the main quoted principles.
This work is carried out within the framework of the Basque Government funding to Research Groups of the Basque University System (IT 1066-16). When I wrote it, I was a member of the DH BIO (Committee of Bioethics) of the Council of Europe (see below) and when first proof review was carried out, I was a member of the European Group of Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE, see below). Currently I remain a member of both bodies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Adopted by the General Conference on 19 October 2005. See Caporale and Pavone (2018), passim.
- 2.
I do not want to confuse the reader by making him/her believe that by mentioning (Bio)ethics and (Bio)law he/she is identifying both normative universes, whose differences and relations I have emphasized in other works of mine [namely, Romeo-Casabona (1998), p. 151 ff.], but I just intend to highlight the parallel road they follow, as well as the connections between them, particularly in the international arena.
- 3.
See Article 12 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights: “The Importance of cultural diversity and pluralism should be given due regard […]”.
- 4.
See Articles 14 & 15 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.
- 5.
In favour of applying transparency and publicity to deliberations see Bellver Capella (2016), p. 141.
- 6.
I have already dealt with this subject more extensively: Romeo-Casabona (2000), p. 15 ff.
- 7.
Also in this sense, Bergel (1998), p. 38.
- 8.
Díez Fernández (2007), p. 9 ff.
- 9.
Committee Consultatif National d’Ethique pour les Sciences de la Vie et de la Santé, created by a Decree of the President of the Republic.
- 10.
There are some others, most notably: The Committee on Medical Ethics of the World Medical Association, The World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST), UNESCO, composed of eighteen experts from all over the world; The Council for International Organisations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS).
- 11.
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, submitted for signature in the city of Oviedo on 4 April 1997.
- 12.
The work of other non-permanent committees consisted in two other Conventions on biomedical issues: Convention on the Counterfeiting of Medical Products and similar crimes involving threats to public health, 2011; Convention against Human Organ Trafficking (Convention of Santiago), 2015.
- 13.
Romeo-Casabona (2002), p. 45 f.
- 14.
Some provisions of the Declarations of 1997 and 2003 establish that it is a task of the IBC to control the application of Declarations by nations. It has been considered a very positive new task by Gros Espiell (2006), p. 1412 f.
- 15.
Its current full name is The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE).
- 16.
- 17.
On this opinion see also Bioy (2016), p. 77.
- 18.
VVAA (2006), p. 18 f.
- 19.
The contrary may be derived from the Oviedo Convention: “Primacy of the human being. The interests and welfare of the human being shall prevail over the sole interest of society or science” (Art. 2).
- 20.
See, more extensively, on the various emerging conflicts, Loris Paul (2011), p. 412 f.
- 21.
This was the case, e.g. with a document of the Bioethics Committee (CDBI) Council of Europe on the status of the human embryo, in the preliminary draft stage, as it was soon apparent that it would not be easy to reach an agreement and that perhaps Member States should maintain their own normative divergences. What in other times can be criticised, as a way of circumventing the problematic and therefore uncomfortable areas, and doing so might be a sign of prudence and expression of the existing pluralism.
- 22.
This way has been previewed at the EGE.
References
Bellver Capella V (2016) International bioethics committees: conditions for a good deliberation. In: Serna P, Seoane JA (eds) Bioethical decision making and argumentation. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland
Bergel SD (1998) Human Rights and Genetics: los principios fundamentales de la Declaración Universal sobre el Genoma y los Derechos Humanos. RevDerGenH 9:17–58
Bioy X (2016) Biodroit. De la biopolitique au droit de la bioétihique. LGDJ, Issy-les-Molineaux
Caporale C, Pavone IR (2018) International biolaw and shared ethical principles: the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Routledge, London
Díez Fernández JA (2007) Los comités nacionales de bioética. Ed. Comares, Granada
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (2018a) Artificial intelligence, robotics and ‘autonomous’ systems. European Commission, Brussels
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (2018b) Future of work? Future of society? European Commission, Brussels
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (2021) Ethics of genome editing. European Commission, Brussels
Gros Espiell H (2006) Las declaraciones de la UNESCO en materia de bioética, genética y generaciones futuras. Su importancia y su incidencia en el desarrollo del derecho internacional. Anuario de Derecho Constitucional Latinoamericano, 1405–1416
Loris Paul C (2011) Comité de ética de la investigación (CEI). In: Romeo Casabona CM (Dir.) Enciclopedia de Bioderecho y Bioética, Granada, Cátedra Interuniversitaria de Derecho y Genoma Humano y Editorial Comares I:407–413
Romeo-Casabona CM (1998) La relación entre la Bioética y el Derecho. In: Romeo-Casabona CM (coord) Comares & Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, Granada- Madrid
Romeo-Casabona CM (2000) The human genome, object of international law. Revista de la Sociedad Internacional de Bioética 3:105–126
Romeo-Casabona CM (2002) Los genes y sus leyes. El derecho ante el genoma humano. Cátedra Interuniversitaria de Derecho y Genoma Humano - Ed. Comares, Bilbao-Granada
VVAA (2006) Operation of bioethics committees: procedures and policies Guide No. 2. UNESCO, Paris
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Romeo-Casabona, C.M. (2021). Consultative Boards at International Level. In: Busatta, L., Casonato, C. (eds) Axiological Pluralism. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 92. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78475-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78475-1_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78474-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78475-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)