Analyzing social policy argumentation: A case study on the opinion of the German national ethics council on an amendment of the stem cell law

Informal Logic

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 62-91

  Zenker, Frank ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Conductive argument; Ethical dilemma; Human embryonic; Political compromise; Political decision; Pro con argument; Revision; Stem cell research

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958090483     PISSN: 08242577     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.22329/il.v30i1.2947     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Beckmann, J. P. (2004). On the German Debate on Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29, 603-621.
2. Bell, W. J. (1995). A Pragmatic Framework for the Evaluation of Policy Arguments. Policy Studies Review 14, 3-24.
3. Braun, K. (2005). Not Just for Experts: The Public Debate about Reprogenetics in Germany. Hastings Center Report 35, 42- 49.
4. Curzer, H. J. (2004). The ethics of embryonic stem cell research. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29, 533-562.
5. CERACT (2008). Committee on Education, Research and Appraisal of the Consequences of Technology, 3 March 2008. Verbatim Protocol 16/53, German Bundestag, .
6. van den Daele, W. (2008). Streitkultur. Über den Umgang mit unlösbaren moralischen Konflikten im Nationalen Ethikrat. In: Gosewinkel, D. & G. F. Schuppert (eds). Politische Kultur im Wandel von Staatlichkeit. Berlin: Edition Sigma, 357-384.
7. DFG/Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (2006). Stammzellforschung in Deutschland-Möglichkeiten und Perpektiven, .
8. Embryo Protection Law/Embryonenschutzgesetz (1990). (English: ). Geyer, C. (ed.) (2001). Biopolitik. Die Positionen. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
9. Govier, T. (1987). Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation (Studies of Argumentation in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis 5). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
10. Govier, T. (1999). Reasoning with Pros and Cons. In: The Philosophy of Argument. Newport News, VA: Vale Press, chapter 10.
11. th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson.
12. Goertz, G. (2004). Constraints, Compromises and Decision Making. Journal of Conflict Resolution 48, 14-37.
13. Knoppers, B.M., S. Bordet & R. Isasi. (2008). The Human Embryo: Ethical and Legal Aspects. In: Lafond, J. & C. Vaillancourt (eds). Human Embryogenesis: Methods and Protocols (Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 550). New York: Springer (Humana Press), 281-305.
14. Krones, T. (2006). The Scope of the Recent Bioethics Debate in Germany: Kant, Crisis, No Confidence in Society. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 15, 273-281.
15. Krones, T., E. Schlüter, E. Neuwohner, S. El Ansari, T. Wissner & G. Richter. (2006). What is the preimplantation embryo? Social Science & Medicine 63, 1-20.
16. Merkel, R. (2002). Forschungsobjekt Embryo. München: DTV.
17. Merkel, R. (2007). The legal status of the human embryo. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 14, supplement 1, 54-60.
18. NEC/Nationaler Ethik Rat/German National Ethics Council (2001). Stellungnahme zum Import menschlicher embryonaler Stammzellen.
19. NEC/NER/Nationaler Ethik Rat/German National Ethics Council (2007). Zur Frage einer Änderung des Stammzellgesetztes. (English: ).
20. Provis, C. (2004). Negotiation, Persuasion and Argument. Argumentation 18, 95-112.
21. Ramik, J. & Vlach, M. (2002). Pareto-optimality of compromise decisions. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 129, 119-127.
22. th Session (11 April 2008), 16307-16308 .
23. Rehg, W. (2009). Cogent Science in Context. The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory and Habermas. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
24. Schegloff, E. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70, 1075-1095. (Reprinted in: Gumperz, J.J. & D. Hymes (eds) (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Basil Blackwell, 346-380).
25. Schmidt, K.W., F. Jotterand & C. Foppa (2004). Neither Convention nor Constitution - What the Debate on Stem Cell Research Tells Us About the Status of the Common European Ethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29, 499-508.
26. Schockenhoff (2007). Institutionalisierte Doppelmoral. Stammzellforschung: Eberhard Schockenhoff kritisiert die letzte Stellungnahme des Nationalen Ethikrates. Die Tagespost, 19 July 2007, .
27. Stem Cell Law/Stammzellgesetz (SCL). (English: ).
28. Stark, C. (2007). Embryonic Stem Cell Research according to German and European Law. German Law Journal 7, 665-656.
29. Takala, T. & M. Häyry (2007). Benefiting from past wrongdoing, human embryonic stem cell lines, and the fragility of the German legal position. Bioethics 21, 150-159.
30. Thompson, J. A., Itskovitz-Eldor, J., Shapiro, S. S., Waknitz, M. A., Swiergiel, J. J., Marschall, J. S. & Jones, J. M. (1998). Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science 282,1145-1147.
31. Isasi, R. M. & B. M. Knoppers (2006). Beyond the permissibility of embryonic and stem cell research: substantive requirements and procedural safeguards. Human Reproduction 21, 2474-2481.
32. Walters, L. (2004). Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Intercultural Perspective. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14, 3-38.
33. Wellmann, C. (1971). Challenge and Response: Justification in Ethics. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
34. Wohlrapp, H. (2008). Der Begriff des Arguments: über die Beziehungen zwischen Wissen, Forschen, Glauben, Subjektivität und Vernunft. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.
35. Zlotkin, G. & Rosenschein, J.S. (1996). Compromise in negotiation: exploiting worth functions over states. Artificial Intelligence 84, 151-176.