Kaveny M Cathleen
J Relig Ethics. 2006 Jun;34(2):311-37. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9795.2006.00270.x.
This article considers the sort of diversity in perspective appropriate for a presidential commission on bioethics, and by implication, high-level governmental commissions on ethics more generally. It takes as its point of comparison the respective reports on human cloning produced by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, appointed by President Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush's President's Council on Bioethics, under the leadership of its original chair, Leon Kass. I argue that the Clinton Commission Report exemplifies forensic diversity (the type of diversity between contesting parties in a legal case), while the Kass Council Report exemplifies academic diversity (the diversity found in a medieval disputatio). Drawing upon Thomas Aquinas, I argue that the type of diversity most appropriate for such advisory bodies is deliberative diversity, which facilitates the President's process of taking counsel. After considering their respective charges, I suggest that neither the Clinton Commission nor the Kass Council possessed an adequate degree of deliberative diversity for their respective tasks.
本文探讨了适合总统生物伦理委员会的那种视角多样性,更广泛地说,也适用于高级别政府伦理委员会。它将比尔·克林顿总统任命的国家生物伦理咨询委员会以及在其首任主席利昂·卡斯领导下的乔治·W·布什总统生物伦理委员会就人类克隆问题各自发布的报告作为比较对象。我认为,克林顿委员会的报告体现了司法多样性(类似于法律案件中争议各方之间的那种多样性),而卡斯委员会的报告体现了学术多样性(类似于中世纪辩论中所发现的多样性)。借鉴托马斯·阿奎那的观点,我认为最适合此类咨询机构的多样性类型是审议多样性,它有助于总统的咨询过程。在考虑了它们各自的职责后,我认为克林顿委员会和卡斯委员会在各自的任务中都没有充分程度的审议多样性。