Hastings Cent Rep. 2017 May;47 Suppl 1(Suppl Suppl 1):S4-S9. doi: 10.1002/hast.710.
At every moment, somewhere in the world, a group of men and women are sitting around a table deliberating about an ethical issue posed by medicine and research, whether as a research ethics committee; a hospital or clinical ethics committee; a stem-cell review committee; a gene transfer research committee; a biobank ethics committee; an ethics advisory committee for a medical or nursing association or nongovernmental organization; a state, provincial, national, or intergovernmental bioethics committee; or an ad hoc panel examining a particular development or case. However, the last national committee in the United States, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, held its final meeting at the end of August 2016 and closed its doors. Should we regret its departure? I believe that the United States would benefit from having another national bioethics advisory body, but I do not think that the commission should simply have continued under a new president in the same form. Instead, looking at the experience of that commission and its six predecessors-who they were, how they worked, the functions they served, and the problems they experienced-we can derive some useful ideas for anyone planning to build the next commission.
在世界的某个地方,每时每刻都有一群男女围坐在桌旁,审议医学和研究提出的伦理问题,他们可能是研究伦理委员会、医院或临床伦理委员会、干细胞审查委员会、基因转移研究委员会、生物库伦理委员会、医学或护理协会或非政府组织的伦理咨询委员会、州、省、国家或政府间生物伦理委员会,或者是审查特定发展或案例的特别小组。然而,美国最后一个国家委员会——总统生物伦理问题研究委员会于 2016 年 8 月底举行了最后一次会议,并关闭了大门。我们应该对它的离开感到遗憾吗?我认为美国将受益于另一个国家生物伦理咨询机构,但我认为该委员会不应该简单地由新总统以同样的形式继续存在。相反,从该委员会及其六任前任的经验来看——他们是谁、他们如何工作、他们所履行的职能以及他们所遇到的问题——我们可以为任何计划组建下一个委员会的人提供一些有用的思路。