bioetika universal declaration_ benefit & harm (3)

8/18/2019 BIOETIKA Universal Declaration_ Benefit & Harm (3)

1/24

B I O

E T H I C S

• Benefit and Harm

• Universal Declaration on

Bioethics and Human Rights

Drs. Uki Dwiputranto, Grad. Dip. Sc., M.Sc


2/24

Aims: • Human Rights

• Relationship between

rights and responsibilities

• Compare individual and

Collective Rights• Implementation on Ethical

Issues


3/24

World War II

(e.g. genocidal horror)

‘Universal Declaration

of Human Rights’

!"#

• $ree and e%ual in dignit& and

rights irres'ective of race

religion'olitics

• Rights to life li*ert&

securit&.. ade%uate

standard of living health

care.

• $reedom of thought

e+'ression .. and access to

information from inde'endent

media.

Enable people to

support theirfamily’s basicneeds, ood

!uality of life and"ellbein #food,

health, education,

security, etc$


4/24

HumanRights

HumanResponsibilities

To ensure the rihts andeneral "elfare of

others%

&ihts confer ne"po"ers and freedom%

So, it must be e'ercisedresponsibly ( "ith duerespect for issues ofethics and )ustice%


5/24


6/24

The typical emphasis in

WESTERN NATIONS has

been on rihts and freedom

for the indi*idual

#+indi*idualism’$

In many EASTERN

NATIONS there has been

e'cessi*e emphasis on

duties and responsibilities to

society and state

#+collecti*ism’$

Each *alue system can learn and bene-tfrom the other, to reach a common middle

round "hich doesn’t sideline eitherindi*idual human rihts or collecti*e

human responsibilities ..?


7/24

Human res'onsi*ilities at the glo*al level include

conce'ts of ,-I/0 1U,2I3 (economic issue)

and 3-0-4I/0 ,23W/RD,HI5

(environmental issue).

Science

Technology

.ilemma

$oundation forhumanit&’s res'onse

to the ever increasing

dilemmas and

controversies related

6ith science and

technolog& a''lication.

Universal Declaration on Bioethics and

Human Rights (78 -cto*er 977:)


8/24

Implementation

onEthical Issues..?


9/24

/% Introduction ofBioethics

0% Ethics 1 Culture

2% Bioethics in 3edicalEducation

4our Basic3oral

5rinciples

6% .octor75atient &elationship

BH87/

• Bene-cence∗

• 9on7male-cence

• Autonomy

•

ustice


10/24

5u*lic and institutional 'olicies are also

develo'ed from reasoned choices a*out

a''ro'riate benefits relative to costs and risks

(Benefit vs Harm).

• 1udgment a*out the

most suita*le medical

treatment.

• 1udgment a*out ethicalacce'ti*ilit& of research

involving human

su*;ects.


11/24

3+am'le< in su*mitting a research

'rotocol involving human su*;ects to an

institutional revie6 *oard (IRB)

for a''roval.

/n investigator is e+'ected to arra&

the risk to su*;ect and probable

benefits to *oth su*;ects and societ&

and to e+'lain 6h& the 'ro*a*le

*enefits out6eigh the ris=.

IRB then offer a

reasoned

assessment

If a''roved

2he investigator is e+'ected to

descri*e the ris= and 'ro*a*le

*enefits to 'otential su*;ects

Informeddecision

onresearch

participation


12/24

;arious informal strateies ha*ee*ol*ed to help ma


13/24

Analysis Tool


14/24

It "as si' men of Indostan, To learnin much inclined,>ho "ent to see the Elephant#Thouh all of them "ere blind$,

That each by obser*ation3iht satisfy his mind%

The First approach?d the Elephant,And happenin to fallAainst his broad and sturdy side,At once bean to ba"l:@od bless me but the ElephantIs *ery li


15/24

• 2he 3thical atri+ is a versatile tool for anal&sing ethical

issues.• It is intended to hel' 'eo'le ma=e ethical decisions

'articularl& a*out ne6 technologies.• It is an aid to rational thought and democratic

deli*eration not a su*stitute for them.

• 2he three 'rinci'les of res'ect for 6ell*eing autonom&and ;ustice form the columns of the matri+.

• 2he ro6s consist of the ‘interest grou's’ caught u' 6ith

the issue in %uestion.

• 2hese might include different grou's of 'eo'le such asconsumers and food 'roducers and also non?humans

such as farm animals or the environment.

&he Ethical 'atri

htt'


16/24

• 2his e+am'le involves a hormone called *ovine somatotro'hin (*,2) 6hich

increases mil= &ield 6hen in;ected su*cutaneous into dair& cattle.• 2he hormone 6hich is 'roduced *& recom*inant DG/ technolog& (genetic

engineering) in cultures of the *acterium E. coli, was the first GM product to be

used (in the USA in ani!al a"riculture.

• B& in;ecting co6s ever& t6o 6ee=s 6ith *,2 farmers can e+'ect an average

increase in &ields of 9?: and although slight changes in nutrient content

ma& result the overall concentrations of nutrients in *ul=ed mil= are 'ro*a*l&

unaffected.

• Ho6ever *ecause higher meta*olic demands ma& lead to increased rates of

illness there is a ris= that the 6elfare of in;ected cattle 6ill *e diminished.

• 2he treatment also leads to an increase in the mil= concentration of insulin?li=e

gro6th factor (I4$?) 6hich is a 'otent mitogen (i.e. it stimulates celldivision).

• If the increased mil= concentration of I4$? 6as 'h&siologicall& significant and

if it 6ere to remain *iologicall& active at the level of the gut mucosa (a claim

6hich is contested *& some scientists) it might 'ose a 'u*lic health threat to

'eo'le consuming the mil= or dair& 'roducts.


17/24

$armers can e+'ect

an average

increase in &ields of

9?:

2he co6s are

in;ected ever& t6o

6ee=s 6ith *,2


18/24


19/24

4iure 0 sho"s ho" the use of an ethical matri' can help tosummarise the ethical issues raised by this technoloy in asystematic "ay that is based on the principles that comprise thecommon morality% The Ethical analysis of bsT use in dairy cattle

#3epham, 0DD$


20/24

more detail description of wa*s in which the different principles are

specified for each of the four identified interest groups.

+air* farmersWellbeing: satisfactor# inco!es and workin" conditions for far!ers and far!workers$ (%satisfactor#% is ob&iousl# debatable, but it is a better word than

%ade'uate%, which !i"ht i!pl# %ust enou"h to !eet bare necessities%

Autonomy $ allowin" far!ers to use their skills and ud"e!ent in !akin"

!ana"erial decisions, e.". in choosin" a far!in" s#ste!

Fairness: far!ers and far! workers recei&in" a fair price for their work and

produce, and bein" treated fairl# b# trade laws and practices

ConsumersWellbeing: protection fro! food poisonin" (and har!ful a"ents e.". residues of

&eterinar# dru"s) this also refers to the 'ualit# of life citi*ens eno# as a

conse'uence of a producti&e and profitable far!in" industr# Autonomy: a "ood choice of foods, which are appropriatel# labelled, to"ether with

ade'uate knowled"e to !ake wise food choices) this principle also enco!passes

the citi*en%s de!ocratic choice of how a"riculture should be practised

Fairness: an ade'uate suppl# of affordable food for all, ensurin" that no one "oes

hun"r# of po&ert#


21/24

+air* cows

Wellbeing: 'revention of animal suffering im'roving animal health avoiding ris=sto animal 6elfare

Autonomy $ a*ilit& to e+'ress normal 'atterns of instinctive *ehaviour e.g. graCing

and mating

Fairness: treated 6ith res'ect for their intrinsic value as sentient *eings rather

than ;ust as useful 'ossessions (instrumentall&)

&he BiotaWellbeing: 'rotection of 6ildlife from harm (e.g. *&'ollution) 6ith remedial

measures ta=en 6hen harm has *een caused

Autonomy: 'rotection of *iodiversit& and 'reservation of threatened s'ecies (and

rare *reeds)Fairness: ensuring sustaina*ilit& of life?su''orting s&stems (e.g. soil and 6ater) *&

res'onsi*le use of non?rene6a*le (e.g. fossil fuels) and rene6a*le (e.g. 6ood)

resources cutting greenhouse gas emissions


22/24

Summary: the ethical acce'ta*ilit& of *,2 use for those 6ho have licensed

it (e.g. the ,-) 6ould 'ro*a*l& cite• the need to res'ect farmers@ freedom to innovate• and the economic *enefits to the manufacturers of *,2 the

economies of countries 'roducing it the farmers using it

and 6ere 'rices to fall consumers of dair& 'roducts.

oreover if its use led to reduced co6 num*ers it might result in

marginall& reduced emissions of methane.

2his case also rests on 'erce'tions that the 6elfare of treated

co6s is not affected significantl& (or that increased disease can

*e effectivel& treated) and that there are no ris=s to humansafet& so that la*elling is unnecessar&.

1o* losses in the dair& industr& 6ould not *e seen as an ethical

issue *eing merel& a feature of mar=et economies in 6hich

com'etition guarantees efficient 'roduction


23/24

the ethical case of those 6ho have *anned *,2 use (e.g. the

3U) 6ould 'ro*a*l& focus on res'ects in 6hich it a''ears to

infringe commonl& acce'ted ethical 'rinci'les. 2he& 6ould 'oint to authoritative re'orts suggesting that *,2

use su*stantiall& increases the ris= of 'ain and disease in dair&

co6s and that it might 'resent a ris= to human safet& through

ingestion of increased I4$? in mil=.

oreover the& might consider that *,2 use 6ould• reduce farmers@ autonom& undermine consumer choice if

mil= 'roducts from treated cattle 6ere not la*elled• ;eo'ardise 'u*lic health if re;ection of dair& 'roducts

follo6ed the licensing of *,2 (*ecause mil= is a valua*lesource of dietar& nutrients)

• and increase local 'ollution through the intensification of

dair&ing.


24/24

Life is something we are all in

together in harmony

bioetika universal declaration_ benefit & harm (3)

Documents