[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 7 (Thursday, February 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S440-S441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMISSION TO PROMOTE A NATIONAL DIALOGUE ON BIOETHICS
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to speak to the
bioethics commission which will be proposed. It is part of a bill which
I am not sure is going to make it to the floor today. I would like to
comment on that commission.
Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on this concept which is in
the bill that will be considered sometime in the future. I am not sure
it will be this afternoon, or next week, or sometime in the future. And
the aspect that I want to comment on is this bioethics commission. I
think it is critical that at the end of this century and on into the
next century we have somewhere in the United States a forum where we
can carry on intelligent discussions on the ethical, the theological,
the scientific, and the medical issues that are inevitable as science
progresses with breakthrough discoveries that have the potential both
for very good--very good--but also evil. Where do we digest those in
the society when they are coming through not every week nor every month
but even more frequently? In response to that, I proposed the national
bioethics commission.
We have the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, so-called NBAC.
And I think over the next few days the country will become familiar
with that NBAC designation. The NBAC, the National Bioethics Advisory
Commission was appointed entirely by the President of the United
States. They did a very good job this past year in assimilating data,
information, reports, and testimony from experts and the lay public
broadly over a 90-day period addressing human cloning. That was a good
start. But they very openly said that they were unable to substantively
address the ethical issues surrounding human cloning.
As I have said earlier today, as a scientist, and a public servant
now, I want to make the case that we can no longer separate science
from the ethical consideration in that we as a body must address how to
establish a forum in which such discussions can be carried out.
The Commission cited inadequate time to tackle the ethical issues in
the context of our pluralistic, complex, intricate society in that they
chose primarily to focus on scientific concerns as well as the less
abstract concept of safety. What is safe or not safe? Is this procedure
safe, or is it not safe? They then appealed to each American citizen to
step up to the plate and exercise their leadership and their moral
leadership in formulating a national policy on human cloning. We need
that forum.
Time has shown that neither the Presidential Commission nor the
United States Congress is probably the forum, or at least is an
inadequate forum, for addressing these bioethical issues which are of
tremendous intricacy and important to society.
I, therefore, proposed this national bioethics commission in our
legislation. It is representative of the public at large. It has the
combined participation of experts in law, experts in science, experts
in theology, experts in medicine, experts in social science, experts in
philosophy, and the interest of members of the public. It is my hope
that this commission will forge a new path for our country in the field
of bioethics that will enable us to have an informed, a thoughtful, a
sophisticated, and scientific debate in the public square without fear
on behalf of the public, or politicians, or politics driving our
decisions.
In this proposal, the majority and minority leaders of Congress would
appoint the members of the panel. No current Member of Congress or the
administration would serve on this panel. We simply must depoliticize
these discussions which will simultaneously broaden input from the
general public. Each and every citizen of this country should have the
opportunity to contribute to these debates.
This commission would be established within the Institute of
Medicine, and would be known as a commission to promote a national
dialogue on bioethics.
Very briefly, it would have 25 members, 6 appointed by the majority
leader of the Senate, 6 by the minority leader of the Senate, 6
appointed by the Speaker of the House, and 6 appointed by the minority
leader of the House of Representatives. There would be a chairman. In
addition, representatives stated in the legislation would be from the
fields of law, theology, philosophy, ethics, medicine, science, and
social science. The commission would be appointed no later than
December 1st of this year. We have to move ahead quickly. They would
serve for a length of 3 years. And the duties of the commission, as
spelled out in the legislation, would be to provide an independent
forum for broad public participation and discourse concerning important
bioethical issues, including cloning, and provide for a report to
Congress concerning the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the commission concerning Federal policy and possible congressional
action.
Subcommittees are established on that commission for legal issues,
for theological issues, for philosophical
[[Page S441]]
and ethical issues, medical issues, and scientific issues, and for
social issues.
I will not belabor the commission, but want to come back to the
concept and the concept is to have an appropriate forum to discuss the
types of issues we are discussing today, which I have made the case
that we have to act on today in response to proposals that have been
made from the private sector and to have a better, a more appropriate,
a more responsive, and a more representative forum to address such
issues in the future.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak
as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________