About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

12 Cambridge Q. Healthcare Ethics 235 (2003)
Bioethics in the United Kingdom: Genetic Screening, Disability Rights, and the Erosion of Trust

handle is hein.journals/cqhe12 and id is 241 raw text is: Special Section: Bioethics Now: International Voices 2003 Bioethics in the United Kingdom: Genetic Screening, Disability Rights, and the Erosion of Trust PETER HERISSONE-KELLY It goes almost without saying that there are no academic bioethical debates that are unique to the United Kingdom. The debates in which U.K. bioethicists become involved take place in international journals and in books with a worldwide readership. The contributions of those from these shores are fre- quently made in response to work by academics from the United States, Australia, Scandinavia, and a whole host of other countries. That said, a survey of articles and books published over the last year or so straightforwardly demonstrates that some topics draw significantly more contributions from the United Kingdom than others. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these topics are frequently those that feature prominently in wider public debate, and in the media, in the United Kingdom. And recent events in the United Kingdom have given the media in particular much to say about a small selection of issues of concern to bioethicists. The Topics First, there have been a number of high-profile stories about the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PIGD), which collectively have led the media into a frenzy of speculation, and in some cases panic, about so-called designer babies and the slippery slope to full-scale eugenic selection of chil- dren. Second, organ-retention scandals focusing on Alder Hey Hospital and the Bristol Royal Infirmary, and the shocking tale of Dr. Harold Shipman-who by murdering at least 215 of his elderly patients has gained the dubious distinction of being the United Kingdom's most prolific serial killer-have exacerbated a growing and widespread public distrust of the medical profession. As might be expected, the treatment given to these topics by professional bioethicists differs sharply from that which they receive at the hands of the media. In addition to bringing a greater degree of rigor to their investigations, bioethicists have predictably bypassed the details of individual cases in favor of a careful scrutiny of the underlying issues. In the case of discussion of PIGD, U.K. bioethicists have tended to downplay alarmist fears (rampant in the media) of the technique being used to select for such surface cosmetic fea- tures as eye color and height, and have instead focused on concerns, voiced by the disability rights movement, that genetic screening for physical impairment is discriminatory. When it comes to the crisis of public trust in the medical Thanks are due to Matti Hayry for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics (2003), 12, 235-241. Printed in the USA. Copyright © 2003 Cambridge University Press 0963-1801/03 $16.00 235

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most