Class Eleven/notes

From Cyberlaw

Notes 4.24.06

Bioethics: the “Yuck Factor,” or Something More?

Gary’s lecture -- not too many notes today bc slides were v thorough -- pls add link here!

Yuck factor = “wisdom of repugnance,” emotional expression that you can’t really articulate

• Has been used by bioconservatives in a number of situations

• Combined w/ religion --> shuts down debate

• Kind of like porn “I know it like I see it” – no real justification

• We’ve had a lot of guest lecturers w/ strong assertions

• Gary wants to make sure we examine our yuck reactions – starting pt for discussion, not ending pt

Definitions (see slides):

• What is the difference between Gary’s definition of religion and our definition of science?

• Does ethics = law + philosophy or philosophy + religion?

Research to Clinics:

• Nurembourg Code – first principle is voluntary consent by patient

• Became standard for AMA, NIH, FDA

o Still many unethical studies conducted

o Need for national human experimentation board – idea has been around since at least 1973

• National Commission for Protection of Human Subjects – three fundamental principles laid out in Belmont Report (respect for persons, beneficence, justice)

• Yuck factor as political technique, not a bioethics concern

o There is political capital in the yuck factor

• Common Rule ab consent requirement

• Qualitative difference between Clinton’s bioethics council (informed consent) and Bush’s (more theological – less procedural, more theological topics)

• Right to choose to participate in research moved into right to choose to receive therapy, which then led to right to refuse therapy (even when conseq is dying)

Schaivo

• Nesson’s arg for Bush: I have a lot of constituents who care ab TS

• Bioethical arg relied on substantive law

• Lawyer’s job is to fit ethics into legal sounding argument

• Are ethical args more emotional than legal ones?

o Don’t care what the legal arg are – bioethical ones really at the heart

Belee 22:19, 24 April 2006 (EDT)