Search

Germany is an interesting case with respect to the governance of reprogenetics. It has a strong profile in the technosciences and high aims regarding the global bioeconomy, yet her regulation of human genetics, reproductive medicine and embryo research has for a long time been rather restrictive. German biopolitical exceptionalism has often been explained by reference to Catholicism and the legacy of the Nazi past. The Germans, so goes the common story, have learnt the lessons of history and translated them into unconditional respect for human dignity, which in turn translates into unconditional protection of human life, including the human embryo, and the firm repudiation of any eugenic distinction between 'life worth to live' and 'life not worth to live'. This, however, is not the whole story. Alongside deontological strictness we find another strand of governing body politics and reprogenetics in Germany, the rule-and-exception model, running from the mid-1970s abortion law via the 2002 Stem Cell Act to the 2011 regulation of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. In contrast to the former, that strongly draws on Kant and his concept of human dignity, the latter bears resemblances to Carl Schmitt's concept of state of exception. The article will show that the rule-and-exception model builds the exception into the rule and transforms the meaning and mandate of ethics, namely from safeguarding ethical standards to deciding about the exception. Given that the exception has now tended to become the rule, the question is whether the lessons of history will govern German reprogenetics for much longer., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Since its inception, the Health Council of the Netherlands has included normative aspects in its reports. Over the past decades, ethics and rights have received increasing attention, particularly since the establishment of the Standing Committee on Medical Ethics and Health Law in 1977. In particular, the ethical implications of bio-molecular life sciences (genetic counselling, genetic screening, research with human embryos) have been discussed in the Council's publications. The Council has also been involved from an early stage in the euthanasia discussion. It is accepted that policy advice concerning scientific developments implies normative considerations. However, the extent to which the Council's role is simply to highlight these considerations or to present conclusions remains a recurring question. In the latter case, priority is often given to the principle of respect for autonomy, while underestimating the significance of solidarity.