DISCLAIMER

The following is a staff memorandum or other working document 
prepared for the members of the Advisory Committee on Human
Radiation Experiments.  It should not be construed as representing
the final conclusions of fact or interpretation of the issues. 
All staff memoranda are subject to revision based on further 
information and analysis.  For conclusions and recommendations of
the Advisory Committee, readers are advised to consult the Final
Report to be published in 1995.





                                                        TAB E-2  

            þþþDRAFT þ FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLYþþþ

			MEMORANDUM

TO:       Members of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation 
	  Experiments

FROM:     Allen Buchanan

DATE:     January 10, 1995

RE:       Ethical Criteria




I.   EXPLICIT POLICIES OF AGENCIES AT THE TIME (e.g., the Wilson 
     Memorandum, Atomic Energy Commission Memoranda?)

     Rationale:  Institutionally created obligations, 
     role-responsibilities of persons in authority at institutions 
     are to be fulfilled, unless there are weighty countervailing 
     moral considerations.

II.  LEGALLY EXPLICIT FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS 
     AND OF PERSONNEL WITHIN THEM (e.g., the Fernald School) TO 
     PROTECT AND SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THEIR CHARTERS (legislation 
     and operating charters for state institutions)

     Rationale:  At least in a reasonably just system and when the 
     particular explicit institution obligations (e.g., to protect and 
     serve the interests of mentally impaired individuals, as at the 
     Fernald School) are morally unexceptionable and even morally 
     laudable, there is a prima facie moral obligation to discharge 
     these institutional obligations, at least where participation in 
     the institution (on the part of the personnel) is voluntary.

III. PROFESSIONAL CODES AT THE TIME (in particular, Hippocratic 
     Medical Ethics, Explicit endorsement of the Nuremberg Code by the 
     AMA and other medical organizations)

     Rationale:  Self-imposed obligations, quid pro quo for 
     professional privilege and status.


					1



IV.  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS AGREEMENTS IN WHICH THE U.S. 
     PARTICIPATED AT THE TIME, AND WHICH IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS OF 
     CONSENT OR OF INFORMED CONSENT FOR HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION

     Rationale:  A ratified international treaty or convention becomes 
     the domestic law of the United States; and there is a prima facie 
     obligation to obey the law of the land; especially on the part of 
     officials who are sworn to uphold the law of the land, at least 
     if the general character of the legal system is morally 
     acceptable, and the agencies charged with adjudication and 
     enforcement of the laws are legitimate.  (The U.S. did sign the 
     European Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966(?))

V.   UNCONTROVERSIAL BASIC MORAL STANDARDS THAT ENJOYED NEAR UNIVERSAL 
     ENDORSEMENT AT THE TIME  (e.g., prohibition against lying and 
     deception; prohibition against inflicting harm or risk without 
     consent [or at least without prospect of therapeutic benefit]; 
     prohibition against exploitation, especially taking advantage of 
     the vulnerable)

     Rationale:  These common moral rules enjoy wide cross-cultural 
     support, throughout history, being included in most if not all 
     religious and philosophical ethical traditions, and being 
     included in many legal systems in one form or another.

VI.  MORAL STANDARDS PECULIAR TO OR ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT IN A 
     DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL SYSTEM  (e.g., presumption against secrecy 
     as an obstacle to accountability; nondiscrimination in the 
     distribution of the burdens and benefits of providing for 
     national security, serving the public interest, etc.)

     Rationale:  General compliance with these norms is necessary for 
     the well-functioning of a democratic system and for preserving 
     the basic equality of citizens such a system is committed to.


					2