Society's choices.

J. Palca

1995-05-01

The Hastings Center Report

Abstract:Economists refer to demand for certain commodities as inelastic. These are items like food and clothing and home heating oil that are relatively fixed in demand and relatively immune to increase in cost. For Washington, the list of inelastic commodities must surely include paper. It's a safe bet that no matter how high the cost of paper goes--and it's gone up rather steeply recently--Society's Choices: Social and Ethical Decision Making in Biomedicine (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995) would have been published in all its full 546 pages of glory. Not that Society's Choices doesn't have much to offer. Produced at the suggestion of the Division of Health Sciences Policy of the Institute of Medicine, the book is "intended to serve as a source of ideas for those wishing to utilize or redefine mechanisms for considering the social and ethical impacts of developments in biomedicine" (p. ix). Some of the ideas could be useful to committees like the National Bioethics Advisory Commission President Clinton has said he intends to form. Perhaps the most compelling issue the book tackles is what factors go into making a bioethical advisory committee a success. In some ways, the criteria are self-evident. But somehow the obvious has a way of slipping through the cracks when Washington starts forming committees, so spelling out the criteria is valuable. First, bioethics committees must have intellectual integrity. Their reasoning and conclusions must be clear and logical. There should be a high level of scholarship to avoid the "reinventing the wheel" phenomenon that bogs down so many committees. And there should be what the report calls "sound judgment": "We call `judicious' those reports that strike an appropriate balance between the relevant rights and interests, disciplinary perspectives, and cultural traditions of a given society" (p. 155). That's clear enough. "Unfortunately," as the report itself notes, "there is no known algorithm for producing reports of this kind. In the final analysis, it is a matter of good judgment honed through years of experience" (p. 155). Second, committees should pay close attention to the sensitivities of any group an ethical body's decisions .might affect. Any ethical judgment about distributing the long-term contraceptive Norplant to inner-city women without adequate consultation with local Community leaders is an invitation for disaster. An appropriately diverse membership for an advisory committee is a straightforward way of dealing with such problems. Open meetings also inspire confidence in the way a closed meeting never can. …