When is personal data rendered anonymous? Interpreting recital 26 of Directive 95/46/EC.

Outlines the scope of Council Directive 95/46. Discusses whether the principles of data protection apply to data rendered anonymous. Examines the difficulty in applying sufficient protection to data once it has been rendered anonymous and stresses the importance of data controllers informing data subjects of any anticipated anonymisation

Inclusive governance over agricultural biotechnology: risk assessment and public participation

A public outcry opposing the use of genetic modification of rice has produced a governance deadlock in China, which threatens to undermine attempts to reap the benefits that modern agricultural biotechnology can offer to the Chinese people. It is argued that this opposition to the agricultural use of modern technology is, in large part, the result, not only of lack of public participation in the decisions involved, but of an over-reliance on conventional approaches to risk assessment that do not adequately take account of the interests of all who stand to be affected by the use of the technology. Public participation is necessary, but it must be guided by equitable principles that take proper account of the rights and interests of all stakeholders. It is argued that a governance strategy based on the Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC) of the American philosopher Alan Gewirth has promise to counter the distrust of the regulators that fuels the deadlock because the PGC can be justified from the perspective of Marxist and Confucian principles that dominate the Chinese political and ethical landscape

The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know Revisited: Part One

Prompted by developments in human genetics, a recurrent bioethical question concerns a person’s ‘right to know’ and ‘right not to know’ about genetic information held that is intrinsically related to or linked to them. In this paper, we will revisit the claimed rights in relation to two particular test cases. One concerns the rights of the 500,000 participants in UK Biobank (UKB) whose biosamples, already having been genotyped, will now be exome sequenced; and the other concerns the rights of pregnant women (and their children) who undergo non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)—a simple blood test that can reveal genetic information about both a fetus and its mother. This two-part paper is in four principal sections. First, we sketch the relevant features of our two test cases. Secondly, we consider the significance of recent legal jurisprudence in the UK and Singapore. Thirdly, we consider how, the jurisprudence apart, the claimed rights might be grounded. Fourthly, we consider the limits on the rights. We conclude with some short remarks about the kind of genetically aware society that we might want to be and how far there is still an opportunity meaningfully to debate the claimed rights

Comparing Mutuality and Solidarity in Its Application to Disaster Ethics

Often it has been observed that in disaster situations, people (including victims) become altruistic and are very willing to listen, obey and act in a manner that would help bring an end to the situation. In this chapter, linking disaster ethics and human rights, it is argued that this indeed is how it should be, disaster or otherwise, and that we have moral duties to oneself and to others. An individual exhibiting solidarity, comradery and altruism during a disaster is indeed behaving as a reasonable Self, and exercising ethical individualism as per Gewirthian philosophy. It is the duty of the State and society to act as a supportive State and a caring society. In order to do this, we need to be conditioned for ethical rationality before any whiff of disaster arises, i.e. in our day-to-day conduct and decision-making, at a personal, institutional and transnational level. Our ethical resilience during disasters can only be as robust as our rational moral compass during ‘peace-time’. This chapter argues that Gewirthian solidarity ethics (GSE) should play a role in European policy and action in order to provide a system that conditions ethical rationality and in order to fulfil human rights. This involves addressing our current understanding of human rights as distinct categories of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and to effect a shift towards a more holistic understanding of human rights, whereby the hierarchy of fulfilment does not always prioritise civil and political rights.Peer reviewe

Harnessing Higher-Order (Meta-)Logic to Represent and Reason with Complex Ethical Theories

The computer-mechanization of an ambitious explicit ethical theory, Gewirth's Principle of Generic Consistency, is used to showcase an approach for representing and reasoning with ethical theories exhibiting complex logical features like alethic and deontic modalities, indexicals, higher-order quantification, among others. Harnessing the high expressive power of Church's type theory as a meta-logic to semantically embed a combination of quantified non-classical logics, our work pushes existing boundaries in knowledge representation and reasoning. We demonstrate that intuitive encodings of complex ethical theories and their automation on the computer are no longer antipodes.Comment: 14 page

Migrants, State Responsibilities, and Human Dignity

This article addresses two questions: First, how does the value of human dignity distinctively bear on a state’s responsibilities in relation to migrants; and, secondly, how serious a wrong is it when a state fails to respect the dignity of migrants? In response to these questions, a view is presented about the distinction between wrongs that violate cosmopolitan standards and wrongs that violate the standards that are distinctive to a particular community; about when and how the contested concept of human dignity might be engaged; and, elaborating a three-tiered and lexically ordered scheme of state responsibilities, about how we should assess the seriousness of a state’s failure to respect the dignity of migrants