liveblog – blog.Bioethics.gov https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog The blog of the 2009 - 2017 Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues Mon, 09 Jan 2017 23:23:29 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Bioethics Commission Closes Meeting with Roundtable Discussion https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/08/31/bioethics-commission-closes-meeting-with-roundtable-discussion/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/08/31/bioethics-commission-closes-meeting-with-roundtable-discussion/#respond Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:27:37 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1913 This afternoon, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) closed its meeting with a roundtable discussion of the impact of bioethics advisory bodies past, present, and future.

Amy Gutmann, Ph.D., Chair of the Bioethics Commission, asked each panelist to identify one important idea or action that encapsulated their thoughts for the day.

Highlights from the discussion include:

Jonathan Montgomery, LL.M., HonFRCPCH, Chair, Nuffield Council on Bioethics, focused on curating topics so as not to reiterate too heavily what past commissions have already discussed.

Eugenijus Gefenas, M.D., Ph.D., Chairperson, Bureau of the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee, UNESCO, observed that continuity of name and staff of commissions would improve continuity, even across administrations.

Rebecca Dresser, J.D., Daniel Noyes Kirby Professor of Law, Washington University in St Louis, said: “Get out of the bioethics bubble.” She emphasized the experience and knowledge necessary for well-rounded composition of commissions.

Harold T. Shapiro, Ph.D, President Emeritus, Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Princeton University, said that external review is necessary for quality work product.

Ruth Macklin, Ph.D., Distinguished University Professor Emerita at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, urged diversity of membership and the importance of including a variety of perspectives.

Robert Cook-Deegan, M.D., Professor, School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, suggested the importance of using relevant expertise to deliberate.

Alexander M. Capron, L.L.B., Scott H. Bice Chair in Healthcare Law, University of Southern California, said “bioethics is a field of inquiry,” and emphasized that individuals should bring their own knowledge and experience from their disciplines to the table.

Thomas H. Murray, Ph.D., President Emeritus, The Hastings Center, said that commissions should “develop robust communication strategies for key audiences,” emphasizing the important role that commissions play in outreach and education.

Members and panelists then engaged in a discussion about what topics will be relevant for a future commission to take up, how they should deliberate, and what their role in society and politics should be. Check out www.bioethics.gov in the next few weeks to watch the archived webcast or read the transcripts.

Thanks for joining us today.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/08/31/bioethics-commission-closes-meeting-with-roundtable-discussion/feed/ 0
Presenters Reflect on National Bioethics Advisory Bodies https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/08/31/presenters-reflect-on-national-bioethics-advisory-bodies/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/08/31/presenters-reflect-on-national-bioethics-advisory-bodies/#respond Wed, 31 Aug 2016 15:00:45 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1909 In the second session of the day, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) heard from a series of speakers reflecting on the past, present, and future impact of national bioethics advisory bodies. Presenters included Robert Cook-Deegan, Professor at the School for the Future of Innovation in Society at Arizona State University; Alexander M. Capron, Scott H. Bice Chair in Healthcare, Law, Policy and Ethics; Thomas H. Murray, President Emeritus of the Hastings Center; and Jonathan Montgomery, Chair of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

Robert Cook-Deegan served on as a member of the Biomedical Ethical Advisory Committee (1987-1990). He observed that the position of the Biomedical Ethical Advisory Committee in Congress as opposed to the executive branch might have contributed to its failure. He noted that an important goal of bioethics commissions should be political impact—for example, the President’s Commission in its Defining Death report influenced state laws. “If a Commission is sanctioned by the US government…there should be something that connects it to the political apparatus, there should be something that you’re doing that matters.”

Alexander M. Capron previously spoke before the Bioethics Commission in 2010 during Meeting 2 regarding the oversight of emerging technologies. Today, he reflected on his time on Chair of the Biomedical Ethics Advisory Committee (1987-1990), and as a member of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (1995-2001). He emphasized that our Commission has set a good example, showing the ways in which ethical issues move from the research stage to the impact in clinical practice and society. He also noted that topics in public health ethics deserve further examination by bioethics bodies.

Thomas H. Murray, who presented before the Bioethics Commission during Meetings 3 (on emerging technologies), 14 (on integrating ethics throughout the research process), and 21 (in memoriam of John Arras), recalled his time as a member of the National Bioethics Advisory Council (NBAC). He noted the importance of a diversity of perspectives, including ideological and religious variation. He also stated: “Our reports influenced how IRBs, regulators, and researchers think about a variety of issues,” emphasizing the impact that bioethics commissions can have on shaping the debate for generations to come. He complimented our Commission on thoughtful work and excellent use of democratic deliberation to address complex issues.

Jonathan Montgomery previously presented before the Bioethics Commission during Meeting 15 on the Nuffield Council’s efforts to address the social implications of novel advances in neuroscience as the commission deliberated about the ethical and social implications of the President’s BRAIN Initiative prior to releasing its report Gray Matters. At today’s meeting, he discussed his experience on the Nuffield Council of Bioethics in the United Kingdom. He emphasized that Nuffield is not beholden to anyone in terms of the topics they select, which affords them more freedom to explore controversial issues. “It’s crucial that we are courageous,” he said. Respecting the public’s opinion does not mean accepting it without scrutiny.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/08/31/presenters-reflect-on-national-bioethics-advisory-bodies/feed/ 0
Kathleen Sebelius Addresses Bioethics Commission https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/08/31/kathleen-sebelius-addresses-bioethics-commission/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/08/31/kathleen-sebelius-addresses-bioethics-commission/#respond Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:36:28 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1904 To start off the meeting, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius addressed, via video presentation, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) and reflected on its tenure during the administration of President Barack Obama.

The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius served as the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2014, and as the Governor of Kansas from 2003 to 2009. She is the President and CEO of Sebelius Resources LLC, which provides strategic advice to companies, investors, and non-profit organizations. Sebelius serves as a Senior Advisor to The Aspen Institute, where she co-chairs the Aspen Health Strategy Group, and as a member on the Board of Directors for companies including Dermira, Grand Rounds, and Humacyte. She earned a Master of Public Administration degree from the University of Kansas and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Trinity Washington University.

During her time as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Sebelius was instrumental in the establishment of the Presidential Commission on the Study of Bioethical Issues by Executive Order in November 2009; she conducted the swearing-in of the Commission’s Members in 2010. In 2012, she issued the charge that led to the release of the Commission’s fifth report, Safeguarding Children: Pediatric Medical Countermeasure Research.

In her remarks, Former Secretary Sebelius reflected on her unique perspective as a U.S. Presidential Administration official who has charged the Bioethics Commission with a project. The former secretary noted the importance of working on tough issues and working across borders. She observed that Bioethics Commission has served an important national role in crucial issues in science and technology policy.

Sebelius May 2012

Bioethics Commission Chair Amy Gutmann and Vice Chair James Wagner greet then- Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius at their 9th Meeting in May of 2012 during the Bioethics Commission’s deliberations about pediatric medical countermeasure research.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/08/31/kathleen-sebelius-addresses-bioethics-commission/feed/ 0
Bioethics Commission Meeting 26: Live from Philadelphia, PA https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/08/31/bioethics-commission-meeting-26-live-from-philadelphia-pa/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/08/31/bioethics-commission-meeting-26-live-from-philadelphia-pa/#respond Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:10:59 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1902 Welcome to Philadelphia, PA for the 26th public meeting of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission). The Bioethics Commission’s meeting is today, August 31, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. ET.

At today’s meeting, the Bioethics Commission will continue the discussion it began in Meeting 25, reflecting on the structure, operations, and impact of bioethics advisory committees. The Bioethics Commission welcomes a variety of esteemed speakers who will shed light on different perspectives pertinent to bioethics advisory committee activities, setting the stage for the future of such groups.
For the full agenda of today’s meeting, click here.

You can follow the proceedings of the Bioethics Commission’s meetings here at this blog, and on the live webcast at the Bioethics Commission’s website www.Bioethics.gov. All transcripts and the webcast will be archived and available following the meeting.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2016/08/31/bioethics-commission-meeting-26-live-from-philadelphia-pa/feed/ 0
Public Bioethics https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/09/02/public-bioethics/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/09/02/public-bioethics/#respond Wed, 02 Sep 2015 16:16:39 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1691 In today’s opening session, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) turned its attention to facilitating public dialogue about bioethics. Democratic deliberation is a guiding principle of the Bioethics Commission. As outlined in its first report, New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies, the Bioethics Commission believes that public discussion and debate promote outcomes that are inclusive, thoughtfully considered, and respectful of competing views. Learn more about the Bioethics Commission’s deliberative process in the video: “How does the Bioethics Commission work?

The Bioethics Commission heard from Dennis Thompson, Ph.D. of Harvard University; Sir Roland Jackson of ScienceWise; Marion Danis, M.D. of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, and Florence Evans, a participant in the “What’s Next California” deliberative polling exercise.

In Democracy and Disagreement, Thompson has argued that democratic deliberation can allow diverse groups separated by class, race, religion, and gender to explore an issue together in ways that allow their different views to stimulate a richer and more extensive discussion.

In this morning’s session, he pointed to the power of deliberative discussions to reach beyond the particular group or body involved, as people who participate become more interested in keeping the dialogue going in their everyday life.

“Deliberations can be propagated,” he said. “There is a study that found that citizens who participated in deliberative action are more likely to talk about the issues and engage with co-workers in ways they didn’t before, and this was an equal opportunity [engagement]. There was not a bias in favor of class and education.”

Jackson, whose organization, ScienceWise, is focused on fostering broader discussions of significant science and technology concerns in the UK, said it’s important to understand that consensus is not necessarily the goal of deliberative processes.

“These are not citizens’ juries or consensus conferences,” he said. “The richness of what comes back from deliberative dialogue is plural and conditional responses. It is then up to the decision maker, the policy maker, to draw on that to make their own conclusions.”

Danis described a specific approach to creating a deliberative process around health insurance policy decisions that uses a game board to facilitate discussions about the complicated array of trade-offs involved. She noted that the experience has demonstrated that “a structured public discussion regarding complex and contested priorities is possible, and the process can improve public understanding and foster meaningful dialogue.”

One challenge she has encountered involves moving the process to the next step—in which the information yielded from deliberative discussions influences policy decisions.

Evans shared her experience as a participant in “What’s Next California,” an innovative effort to draw more ordinary citizens into in-depth consideration and debate of pressing and controversial political issues facing Californians. Evans was impressed with how the deliberative approach prompted a more civil and respectful dialogue on such partisan topics.

“It was an amazing experience,” she said. “We were a bunch of strangers from a lot of different backgrounds…. But everyone was very respectful of each other… There were times when there were emotional responses that were highly charged but they did not dominate.”

After a short break, we will hear from two speakers who will explore fluency in science and ethics.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/09/02/public-bioethics/feed/ 0
Roundtable Discussion: Improving Public Dialogue of Bioethics https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/roundtable-discussion-improving-public-dialogue-of-bioethics/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/roundtable-discussion-improving-public-dialogue-of-bioethics/#respond Wed, 27 May 2015 20:18:49 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1649 The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) closed its discussion of democratic deliberation in bioethics and bioethics education with a roundtable discussion involving Commission members and presenters.

Amy Gutmann, Ph.D., Chair of the Bioethics Commission, kicked off the session by asking the panelists to share their thoughts on what the Bioethics Commission can do to improve the quality of public dialogue and deliberation on bioethics and the quality of bioethics education.

Following are highlights from the discussion:

Margaret Little, Ph.D., director of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics and associate professor in the philosophy department at Georgetown University, suggested that the Bioethics Commission help launch a series of experiments to promote informed deliberation on bioethics, both at universities and in communities. “This is a great model that is used in many places. Right now, there is an energy prize for $5 million to a community that reduces its carbon footprint,” Little noted. “So this is something with incentives and an aspirational mandate.”

“Watching is one thing; doing is another,” said James Fishkin, Ph.D., the Janet M. Peck Professor of International Communication and director of the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University. He urged the Bioethics Commission to undertake an exemplary project using democratic deliberation to spur public engagement in bioethics. “If you do it right, other commissions can follow in your footsteps,” he added.

F. Daniel Davis, Ph.D., the director of bioethics at the Geisinger Health System and former executive director of the President’s Council on Bioethics under President George W. Bush, said that there’s a need to make ethical knowledge more practical and less theoretical. He cited work he is doing with surgical residents, assessing their emotional intelligence as a way to reduce medical errors. The goal, he said, is to get the residents not only to recognize ethical issues but also to “operationalize that ethical knowledge and do so in a virtuous way.”

Jason Schwartz, Ph.D., M. Bioethics, the Harold T. Shapiro Fellow in Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values, Princeton University, asked the Bioethics Commission to think broadly in terms of the government entities that address bioethics issues. “Call attention to the fact that bioethics may not be the domain of bioethics alone,” he said, noting that many bodies that do not have bioethics in their name or mandate deal with bioethics issues. For example, bioethics is a factor in the how the Food and Drug Administration weighs the risks and benefits of pharmaceuticals, and in how vaccines are prioritized for development. “Ethical dimensions are largely ignored or cast aside or reshaped if they are exclusively technical or scientific questions,” Schwarz said.

Steven Joffe, M.D., M.P.H., the Vice Chair of Medical Ethics, Emanuel and Robert Hart Associate Professor of Medical Ethics and Health Policy and director of Penn Fellowship in Advanced Biomedical Ethics at University of Pennsylvania, emphasized the importance of promoting respectful public dialogues. As a model, he suggested presidential debates in which questions are asked by citizens sitting in a circle. “The citizens equip themselves incredibly well time after time after time. And those sorts of discussions, engaging the public about bioethical issues, I think, would be…incredibly powerful to promote the conversations we want to have.”

Connie Ulrich, Ph.D., R.N., F.A.A.N., an associate professor of bioethics and nursing in the Department of Biobehavioral Health Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, cited a need for better communication. “Training and communication would absolutely help in bioethics education, so we can help people feel more confident to address the issues that they face.”

The Commission is scheduled to meet again on September 2 in Washington, D.C. For details, go to www.bioethics.gov.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/roundtable-discussion-improving-public-dialogue-of-bioethics/feed/ 0
Bioethics Education from Three Viewpoints https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/bioethics-education-three-view-points/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/bioethics-education-three-view-points/#respond Wed, 27 May 2015 19:11:17 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1643 This afternoon, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) turned its attention to three approaches for teaching bioethics.

Emphasis on Empirical Methods

Steven Joffe, M.D., M.P.H., the vice chair of Medical Ethics, Emanuel and Robert Hart Associate Professor of Medical Ethics and Health Policy and director of Penn Fellowship in Advanced Biomedical Ethics at University of Pennsylvania, made the case for including empirical scholarship in the education of bioethicists. He identified two broad roles for empiricism in bioethics: to inform ethical analysis and to move from a moral vision to ethical behavior and effective, justifiable policy.

“High-quality, high-impact bioethics requires interdisciplinarity, translation to policy and practice, and grounding in nuanced appreciation of relevant empirical realities,” Joffe said.

Teaching Bioethics through Humanities

Margaret Little, Ph.D., is the director of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics and associate professor in the philosophy department at Georgetown University. Little described how novel approaches to bioethics education, such as the Kennedy Institute’s Conversations in Bioethics series, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), and its Ethics Lab, can help prepare students and the broader public to engage in dialogue and deliberation on topics in bioethics with significant public policy implications.

Each of these approaches has unique advantages. Through the university-wide conversations series, for example, students can gain exposure to experts with both deep knowledge and unique personal experience. Through MOOCs, “anyone with an internet connection can access the world’s experts on a variety of topics,” Little noted. And in the Ethics Lab, students use newly acquired knowledge to design real-world tools and interventions.

Bioethics Education through a Clinical Lens

Connie Ulrich, Ph.D., R.N., F.A.A.N., an associate professor of bioethics and nursing in the Department of Biobehavioral Health Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, explored the value of nursing to public discourse on ethical issues, the ethical issues that nurses encounter that require bioethics education, and the role of bioethics education in preparing the next generation of nursing professionals.

Ulrich said that nurses face complex and challenging ethical issues in clinical care, partly because of the time they spend directly with patients and their families. Yet only about half of nurses surveyed reported having had ethics education in their basic or advanced professional program, and 23 percent said they’d had no ethics education at all. This lack of preparedness can make nurses feel less confident and less likely to take action when faced with an ethical issue.

“Ethics preparedness can strengthen nurses’ ability to work collaboratively with other health care providers, build confidence to speak about ethics concerns related to patient care, and garner respect as valued members of the caregiving team,” Ulrich said.

Next, the Bioethics Commission will wrap up today’s meeting with a roundtable discussion.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/bioethics-education-three-view-points/feed/ 0
How to Elevate Bioethics Deliberations to a National Level https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/how-elevate-bioethics-deliberations-national-level/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/how-elevate-bioethics-deliberations-national-level/#respond Wed, 27 May 2015 17:32:16 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1641 The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) continued its discussion about democratic deliberation in bioethics and turned its attention to how bioethics issues are treated in the national dialogue, and the role of national bodies like the Bioethics Commission in fostering democratic deliberation on bioethics. The Bioethics Commission heard from F. Daniel Davis, Ph.D., the director of bioethics at the Geisinger Health System and former executive director of the President’s Council on Bioethics under President George W. Bush, and Jason Schwartz, Ph.D., M. Bioethics, the Harold T. Shapiro Fellow in Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values, Princeton University.

Davis noted that during his three-year tenure as director of a national bioethics advisory body, he never heard the term “democratic deliberation.” But he believes that active citizen participation in bioethics issues is important and should be encouraged. At Geisinger, he said, he has been involved in several efforts to engage patients and elicit their views on research issues that affect them. For example, Geisinger in 2006 established a biobank after conducting a survey to assess community attitudes toward genetic research and approaches to patient consent.

Schwartz spoke to how previous national bioethics bodies in the United States have sought public engagement as part of their deliberative process. There has been, he said, significant variation in how commissions have approached this objective. Some commissions merely provided public notice of their meetings and made their meeting minutes available to the public. In 1994, the National Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Research went much further, actually holding meetings in affected communities and reaching out to interview individuals and families who had participated in radiation research. The National Bioethics Advisory Committee had three public members, a requirement written into its charter.

Both Davis and Schwartz encouraged the Bioethics Commission to consider applying democratic deliberation to its own work as a way to increase public engagement in bioethics issues.

“It has to be more than just doing it in public,” Davis said. He noted that he’s attended commission meetings with 400 people in attendance, as well as others with only 10 attendants. “I worry about what it means to do ethics in public when there are only 10 people in the audience.”

Schwartz agreed. “Trying to systematically understand the concerns, the hopes, the worries of citizens at-large seems a good thing,” he said.

After a short break, we will hear from three speakers who will explore how to bring theory on public engagement with bioethics into practice.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/how-elevate-bioethics-deliberations-national-level/feed/ 0
Lessons from Democratic Deliberations https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/lessons-from-democratic-deliberations/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/lessons-from-democratic-deliberations/#respond Wed, 27 May 2015 15:22:42 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1639 The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) launched its discussion about democratic deliberation in bioethics this morning by focusing on how to connect theory to practice. The Bioethics Commission heard from James Fishkin, Ph.D., the Janet M. Peck Professor of International Communication and director of the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University, and Scott Kim, M.D., Ph.D., a senior investigator in the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health.

Fishkin has worked extensively to apply the theory of democratic deliberation to create informed public policy discussions. During this morning’s session, Fishkin shared his experience conducting 70 democratic deliberation polls in 22 countries, most recently in Tanzania. He explained that he combines a random sampling of the public with specific conditions designed to facilitate free and respectful group deliberation.

In Tanzania, for example, Fishkin worked with the government to recruit 400 citizens to attend a two-day educational meeting, where they were briefed extensively on natural gas policy and participated in group discussions. They were polled both before and after the meeting. Results showed that attending the meeting significantly affected their views.

Fishkin explained that simply giving people information is not sufficient to engage them on a policy issue. Open discussion among people of diverse viewpoints in an environment of mutual respect is essential, he said.

“Democratic deliberation is not populism,” Fishkin said. “Democratic deliberation is an attempt to convene the people under conditions where they really think about the tradeoffs and competing values.”

Kim noted that measuring public values on moral and ethical issues—including bioethical issues—is challenging. He described how he and his colleagues applied democratic deliberation to assess public opinion on surrogate decision-making by family members of people with Alzheimer’s disease.

Similar to what Fishkin found, Kim said that participating in democratic deliberation had a strong effect on people’s views.

“The process is seen as fair and trustworthy by participants,” Kim said. Indeed, he noted that people who participated in democratic deliberation said that they were willing to abide by the group’s decision, even if it did coincide with their personal views.

Up next, the Bioethics Commission will discuss democratic deliberation in bioethics at the national level.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/lessons-from-democratic-deliberations/feed/ 0
The Bioethics Commission Remembers Commission Member John D. Arras https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/the-bioethics-commission-remembers-commission-member-john-d-arras/ https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/the-bioethics-commission-remembers-commission-member-john-d-arras/#respond Wed, 27 May 2015 13:54:08 +0000 https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/?p=1633 john-arras_portrait

Today, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) remembered one of their own. Dr. John Arras, a member of the Bioethics Commission and the Porterfield Professor of Biomedical Ethics and Professor of Philosophy and Public Health Sciences at the University of Virginia, passed away on March 9, 2015.

“He enlivened our deliberations and contributed far more than his share to our painstaking work,” said Dr. Amy Gutmann, the Chair of the Bioethics Commission in a tribute posted to the Bioethics Commission’s website. “We are grieving the tremendous loss of a great teacher, scholar, and member of our bioethics family, and we already miss him greatly,” she wrote.

Dr. Thomas Murray, President Emeritus of The Hastings Center and a close friend and colleague of Dr. Arras, also offered remarks. “Over the course of his career, John wrote incisively on many issues… He also contributed mightily to the critical evaluation of method and theory in bioethics,” said Murray in a commentary published in the Hastings Center Report. “John loved to teach, and we can be grateful for generations of students and colleagues who learned from him,” he expressed.

President Obama appointed Arras to the Bioethics Commission in 2010 and he served until his death in March. He was 69 years old.

“I can only add to this that as a lover of learning, and seeker of justice for all, John Arras was as good as we can ever hope to get,” said Gutmann.

]]>
https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/blog/2015/05/27/the-bioethics-commission-remembers-commission-member-john-d-arras/feed/ 0