Unesco's Proposed Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights - A Bland Compromise1

Abstract

The latest (June 2005) draft of UNESCO's proposed Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights is a major disappointment. The committee of government 'experts' that produced it made sure that it would not introduce any new obligations for States, and so the document simply restates existing agreements and lists desirable goals without specifying how they can be achieved. This article focuses on the shortcomings of the document as it would apply to health care. These shortcomings are evident in the document's scope, aims and principles. The conclusion is that if UNESCO still thinks that such a declaration is needed, it should produce either an ethical document addressed to individuals and groups, which would be primarily educational in nature, or a legal document addressed to States, which should not have the word 'ethics' in its title.

Bioethics: An Export Product? Reflections on Hands-On Involvement in Exploring the “External” Validity of International Bioethical Declarations

“…This is true of other principles that are "proclaimed" in the Declaration rather than discussed. As Benatar and Williams both point out in their respective contributions to the special edition, the Declaration is a compromise and the principles are indeed rather vague (Benatar 2005;Williams 2005). This is, of course, a common criticism of principlism and of the four principles of medical ethics in particular.…”

Bio-etiek sonder grense: ʼn Verkenning en Christelik-etiese beoordeling van die UNESCO universele deklarasie van bio-etiek en menseregte (2005)

“…Die deklarasie word verwyt dat die druk op regerings om die deklarasie na te kom, uitgeskakel word deur "shall" met "should" te vervang (Williams, 2005:211, Ten Have, 2008. Dit moet egter in gedagte gehou word dat alle deklarasies wat deur die VN-agentskappe aanvaar word, deel uitmaak van die "soft law"-instrumente en dat hierdie instrumente swakker is as konvensies omdat hulle, volgens internasionale reg, nie lande kan bind nie (Trotter, 2009:200;Ten Have 2010:8).…”

Global bioethics: did the universal declaration on bioethics and human rights miss the boat?

“…Its numerous aims include providing a universal framework of principles and procedures to guide states in forming bioethics-related policy, promoting human dignity in bioethical issues in accordance with international human rights law and fostering multidisciplinary dialogue among pluralistic groups. The UDBHR has been criticised, however, regarding its treatment of issues including consent,4 respect for pluralism,13 privacy and confidentiality,16 and non-discrimination 7…”

“…The UDBHR is neither an educational document nor a strong legal document to guide ethical deliberation within states 4. It demands actions that many states are unable to meet, misses opportunities to offer practical guidance in different cultures and socioeconomic contexts and uses abstract language.…”

“…Had the process been less exclusive and more transparent and had it addressed concerns raised by bioethicists outside of Unesco, the UDBHR’s claim to universality would be stronger and its impact would be more substantial. The UDBHR offers no mechanism of prioritising among competing principles,3 restates existing goals without specifying how these can be achieved,4 and may contribute to “declaration-overload” 5…”