Biyoetiğin Uluslararasılaşması: AB ve Avrupa Konseyi’nde Ortak Biyoetik Kuralları Arayışı

Öz

Bu çalışmada dünyanın bilimsel olarak en gelişmiş bölgelerinden birisi olan Avrupa’da biyoetiğin gelişmesi Avrupa Birliği ve Avrupa Konseyi’nde yapılan çalışmalar ışığında tartışılmaktadır. Tıp alanında etiksel ve yöntemsel düzenlemeler Avrupa’da bir süredir ele alınmaktadır. Özellikle Avrupa Konseyi’nin İnsan Hakları ve Biyoetik Sözleşmesi ve Avrupa Birliği’nin ilgili yönetmelikleri alandaki önemli belgelerdir. Bu makalede biyoetiğin uluslararasılaşması ele alınmakta fakat bununla birlikte bu uluslararası düzlemin alt yapısını oluşturan ulusal mekanizmalara ve karar verme yöntemlerine de değinilmektedir. Ulusal düzlemde kural koyuculuğun siyasal partileri ve kamusal alandaki tartışmaları kapsayan incelemesinde mercek altına alınan kuralların ve düzenlemelerin evrimsel gelişimidir. Biyoetik kurallarının evrimi Avrupa’daki klasik devlet anlayışının değişimi ve dönüşümüne dair önemli ipuçları da sunmaktadır. Makale Avrupa Birliği ve Avrupa Konseyi’ndeki ortak biyoetik kuralları arayışlarını dört alt başlık halinde analiz etmektedir. Birinci kısımda Avrupa Konseyi tek başına ele alınmakta ve İnsan Hakları ve Biyoetik Sözleşmesi özelinde ortaya çıkan temel biyoetik prensipler değerlendirilmektedir. İkinci kısım, tartışmayı Avrupa Birliği’ne taşımakta ve Avrupa Konseyi’nin belirlediği biyoetiğin yöntemsel sınırlandırmalarının üzerine inşa edilmeye çalışılan mevzuatı tartışmaktadır. Üçüncü kısım genetik ve biyoteknoloji alanlarında genel eğilimleri ortaya koymakta ve geleceğe dair öngörüleri değerlendirmektedir. Dördüncü ve son kısımda makalenin içeriği özetlenmekte ve değinilen ana noktalar kısaca hatırlatılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyoetik, Avrupa Birliği, Avrupa Konseyi, Biyoteknoloji, İnsan Hakları

Internationalization of Bioethics: The Search for Common Norms of Bioethics in The EU and The Council of Europe

Öz

In this article, the development of bioethics in one of the most scientifically developed regions of the world - Europe- is discussed with reference to the enactments in the Council of Europe and the European Union. An international effort for the creation of ethical and methodological regulations in the medical arena has started in Europe. These efforts were primarily that of the Council of Europe with the Convention of Human Rights and Biomedicine and regulations by the European Union. This study examines the internationalization of bioethics and the national aspects of norm building and decision-making in Europe that covers the political parties, the different stances taken in public debates, evolution of norms and regulations involved in the process and the policies. The questions of the transformation of classical understanding of the state in Europe and the evolution of bioethical norms are also addressed in this study. The article dwells upon the task of analyzing the attempts for common norms of bioethics in the EU and the Council of Europe in four parts. The first part discusses the formal aspects laying down the principles of bioethics in the domain of the Council of Europe and mainly focuses the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. The second part moves the discussion to the European Union and generally outlines the attempts by the EU regarding bioethics and the rules of conduct upon the layer initiated by the Council of Europe. The third part draws out the future prospects in genetics and biotechnology and makes an assessment of the general trends. The fourth part makes a conclusion with a summary of the main points which were discussed through out the article

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bioethics, European Union, Council of Europe, Biotechnology, Human Rights

Kaynakça

1. Abbott, Alison (1996a), ’Bioethics Group Finds ‘No Objection’ to Human Gene Patents‘, Na- ture, Vol. 383, Iss. 6599, p.368.
2. Abbott, Alison (1996b), ’European Vote Raises Bioethics States‘, Nature, Vol. 381, Iss. 6583, p.545.
3. Aulisio, Mark P. and Robert M. Arnold (1999), ’A Consensus About Consensus‘, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Vol. 27, Iss. 4 Winter, p.328.
4. Beck, Ulrich (1997), The Reinvention of Politics- Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order, Cambridge: Polity Press.
5. Blasszauer, B. (1990), ’Eastern Europe: A Changing Moral Scene‘, Hastings Center Report, Vol. 20, Iss. 4 July/Aug, p.2.
6. Bouguerra, Mohamed Larbi (1999), ’Genetics; Malaria; Bioethics‘, Unesco Courier, Sep 99, pp: 35-38.
7. Browner, C.H. and H. Mabel (1999), ’Ethnicity, Bioethics, and Prenatal Diagnosis: The Am- niocentesis- Decisions of Mexican-Origin Women and Their Partners‘, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 89, Iss. 11 Nov, pp: 1658-1669.
8. Callahan, Daniel (2000), ’Universalism & Particularism‘, Hastings Center Report, Vol. 29, Iss. 6 Jan/Feb, pp: 37-45.

9. Cattorini, Pado (1994), ’Assisted Reproduction in Italy‘, Hastings Center Report, Vol. 24, Iss. 6 Nov/Dec, pp: 3-5.
10. Clark, Cathy (1995), ’British Working Party Discourages Commercialism and Profiteering‘, Bloody Weekly, June 12, p.11.
11. Caplan, Arthur (1996), ’Patenting Gene Sequences‘, British Medical Journal, Vol. 312, Iss. 7036, pp: 926-930.
12. Clausiusz, Josie (1995), ’Hidden benefits‘, Discover, Vol. 16, Iss. 3 Mar, pp: 30-32.
13. Dickenson, Donna L. (1999), ’Cross Cultural Issues in European Bioethics- IV World Congress of the International Association of Bioethics‘, Bioethics, Vol. 13, Iss. 3-4 July, p.249.
14. Dillne, Luisa (1996), ’Pig Organs Approved for Human Transplants‘, British Medical Journal, Vol. 312, Iss. 7032, pp:657-665.
15. Dyer, Owen (1995), ’Working Party Speaks Out on Use of Human Tissue‘, British Medical Journal, Vol. 310, Iss. 6988, pp: 1159-1168.
16. Erdem, Aydın (1999), ’Bioethics Regulations in Turkey‘, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 25, Iss. 5 Oct, pp: 404-412.
17. Eurobarometer (2004), ‘The Europeans and Biotechnology’.
18. Fine, Andrea (1998), ’Fertility Business Hits Internet- Weaving Web of Controversy‘, Christian Science Monitor, Vol. 90, Iss. 202, pp: 3-5.
19. Hoffman, Stanley (1966), ’Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe‘, Daedalus- Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sci- ences, Vol. 95, Iss. 3, pp: 862-915.
20. Holm, Soren (1992), ’A Common Ethics for a Common Market? Development of a Common Medical Ethics Policy for the European Community‘, British Medical Journal Iss. 6824, pp: 434-437.
21. International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IBC) (1998), Proceedings of the Fifth Session, December, Volume I and Volume II, published by the Division of the Ethics of Science and Technology of UNESCO.
22. Jost, Timothy S. (2000), ’The Globalization of Health Law: The Case of Permissibility of Pla- cebo-based Research‘, American Journal of Law & Medicine, Vol. 126, Iss. 2/3, pp: 175- 187.
23. Keates, Timothy (1995), ’Bioethics in Italy‘, Lancet, Vol. 345, Iss. 8943, pp: 182-191.
24. Marshall, Eliot (1999), ’Ethicists Back Stem Cell Research‘, Science, Vol. 285, Iss. 5427, pp: 502-510.
25. Martin, Patricia A. (1999), ’Bioethics and the Whole: Pluralism, Consensus and the Trans- mutation of Bioethical methods into Gold‘, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Vol. 27, Iss. 4 Winter, pp: 316-324.
26. Miller, Karen Lowry (2000), ’The Biotech Boom‘, Newsweek, October 30.
27. Moravcsik, Andrew (1993), ’Preferences and Power in the European Communities: A Liberal Intergovernmental Approach‘, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 31, Iss. 4, pp: 473-524.
28. Moravcsik, Andrew (1991), ’Negotiating the Single European Act: National Interests and Conventional Statecraft in the European Community‘, International Organization, Vol. 45, Iss. 1, pp: 651-688.
29. Moreno, Jonathan D. (1996), ’Do Bioethics Commissions Hijack Public Debate?‘ Hastings Center Report, Vol. 26, Iss. 3 May/June, pp: 47-49.
30. Nau, Jean-Yves (1994a), ’Bioethics in France‘, Lancet, Vol. 344, Iss. 8914, pp: 48-50.
31. Nau, Jean-Yves (1994b), ’London Perspective‘, Lancet, Vol. 343, Iss. 8890, pp: 165-171.
32. Nau, Jean-Yves (1992), ’France: Legislation on Bioethics‘, Lancet, Vol. 339, Iss. 8797, pp: 862-863.
33. Nicholson, Richard H. (1998), ’Power Corrupts‘, Hastings Center Report, Vol. 28, Iss. 5 Sep/Oct, pp: 6-7.
34. Olweny, Charles (1994), ’Bioethics in Developing Countries‘, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 20, Iss. 3 Sep, pp: 169-175.
35. Pappas, Demetra M. (1994), ’Debating Genetics in Britain‘, Hastings Center Report, Vol. 24, Iss. 6 Nov/Dec, pp: 2-9.
36. Ramsay, Sarah (1996), ’UK Bioethics Council Wants Stricter Controls on Xenotransplanta- tion‘, Lancet, Vol. 347, Iss. 9002, pp: 683-684.
37. Rogers, Arthur and Haroon Ashraf (2000), ’UK’s Position on Human Cloning Provokes Hos- tile Reaction in European Union‘, Lancet, Vol. 355, Iss. 9212, pp: 1344-1345.
38. Rogers, Arthur (1999), ’European Regulations Set to Protect Research‘, Lancet Iss. 9183, p.1011.
39. Rogers, Arthur (1997a), ’Britain Denies Prevarication Over Human-Cloning Ban‘, Lancet, Vol. 350, Iss. 9085, p.1151.
40. Rogers, Arthur (1997b), ’Europe Takes Steps to Outlaw Human Cloning‘, Lancet, Vol. 350, Iss. 9083, p.1012.
41. Rogers, Arthur and Sarah Ramsay (1997c), ’British Life Insurers Demand Genetic Test Re- sults‘, Lancet, Vol. 349, Iss. 9051, p.550.
42. Rogers, Arthur (1997d), ’Embryology Debated in Strasbourg‘, Lancet, Vol. 349, Iss. 9044, p.40.
43. Rogers, Arthur (1996a), ’Europe Says No to FDA But Yes to Bioethics‘, Lancet, Vol. 348, Iss. 9039, p.1441.
44. Rogers, Arthur (1996b), ’European Bioethics Treaty Finally Approved‘, Lancet, Vol. 348, Iss. 9032, pp: 953-954.
45. Rogers, Arthur (1996c), ’Sneaky Protest at European Bioethics Convention‘, Lancet, Vol. 348, Iss. 9031, p.886.
46. Rogers, Arthur (1996d), ’European Bioethics Convention Encounters Fresh Hindrance‘, Lan- cet, Vol. 348, Iss. 9023, p.330.
47. Rogers, Arthur (1996e), ’Europe Presses on with Bioethics Convention‘, Lancet, Vol. 348, Iss. 9019, p.53.
48. Rogers, Arthur (1996f), ’Deadlock Broken As First International Bioethics Treaty is Signed‘, Lancet, Vol. 347, Iss. 9016, p.1686.
49. Rogers, Arthur (1995a), ’More Delays to European Bioethics Convention‘, Lancet, Vol. 346, Iss. 8988, p.1482.
50. Rogers, Arthur (1995b), ’Update on European Bioethics and Patent Talks‘, Lancet, Vol. 345, Iss. 8954, p.916.
51. Rogers, Arthur (1995c), ’Bioethics Convention Delayed Again‘, Lancet, Vol. 345, Iss. 8945, p:311.
52. Rogers, Arthur (1994a), ’Yet More Delay to European Bioethics Convention‘, Lancet, Vol. 344, Iss. 8929, p.1080.
53. Rogers, Arthur (1994b), ’European Bioethics Convention Stalled Again‘, Lancet, Vol. 344, Iss. 8915, pp: 117-118.
54. Rogers, Arthur (1994c), ’Future of European Bioethics Organization‘, Lancet, Vol. 343, Iss. 8903, p.970.
55. Rogers, Arthur (1993a), ’Unrealistic Target for Bioethics Convention‘, Lancet, Vol. 341, Iss. 8843, p.486.
56. Rogers, Arthur (1993b), ’Bioethics in Europe‘, Lancet, Vol. 341, Iss. 8838, pp: 169-170.
57. Rogers, Arthur (1992a), ’Europe Biotechnology Patent Law Blocked Again‘, Lancet, Vol. 339, Iss. 8808, p.1531.
58. Rogers, Arthur (1992b), ’Ethical Diversity ‘, Lancet, Vol. 339, Iss. 8797, pp: 861-862.
59. Rogers, Arthur (1992c), ’Ethics of Biotechnology‘, Lancet, Vol. 339, Iss. 8791, pp: 483-484.
60. Wachter, Maurice A.M. de (1997), ’The European Convention on Bioethics‘, Hastings Center Report, Vol. 27, Iss. 1 Jan/Feb, pp: 13-24.
61. Walters, Leruy (1999), ’Major Events and Publications Related to the Birth of Bioethics- 1925-1975 with Special Attention to the Anglican Contribution‘, Anglican Theological Review, Vol. 81, Iss. 4 Fall, pp: 631-651.
62. Watson, Rory (1997), ’European Bioethics Convention Signed‘, British Medical Journal, Vol. 314, Iss. 7087, pp: 1066-1067.
63. Watson, Rory (1994), ’Which Europe Should Deal with Ethical Issues? European Union or Council of Europe?‘, British Medical Journal, Vol. 308, Iss. 6925, pp: 362-364.
64. Wewetzer, Hartmut (1999), ’Germany: The Dark Shadow of the Past‘, Unesco Courier, Sep 99, pp: 34-36.