"Orthodox tradition, bioethical principles and European integration"

Ismini Kriari
Associate Professor of Constitutional Law
Panteion University

"Values and Principles for Building Europe"
The Holy Synod of the Church of Greece
_______________________

Hotel Divani Caravel
Athens - Greece, May 4-6, 2003

The uniqueness of the new biotechnological developments lies in the understanding at the outset that serious social policy and ethical issues are raised by the biomedical research and that steps ought to be taken now to try to assure that the benefits of the biotechnological evolution are maximized and the potential dark side is minimized (1). We live in the era of globalisation, but this reality should not amount to the survival of only one culture or a unique moral perception. On the contrary people and their representatives should try to contribute to the dialogue conducted worldwide on these major challenges and enrich it with their thoughts and perspectives.

Our societies are thus faced with a formidable challenge, given that biomedical developments raise questions at three different levels:

1. The first set of questions refers to the notion of human rights. The very idea of human rights arguably rests on what it means to be human, on a reverence for life and for autonomy, on the need of the individual to remain master of his/her body. Nowadays the main legal issues deal with the fundamental values inherent to the human rights conception: When does life begin and when does it come to an end, what is the moral status of an embryo, what is the meaning of affiliation? In order to solve these new individual and social problems a reappraisal of traditional ethical principles is required, which may lead to the enrichment of the already safeguarded rights or to the drafting of new ones.

An example of the new generation of rights that are elaborated as a result of the biomedical developments is the right to the protection of genetic identity. The Greek Constitution was under revision, completed on April 17, 2001 (2). A new article setting out the protection of genetic identity is added thereto (as art.5 para.5), upon initiative of the Minister of Culture and Professor of Constitutional Law Evangelos Venizelos. The amendment was unanimously supported by all political parties represented in the Greek Parliament (3), (4).

2. The second set of questions refers to the establishment of new bodies for the optimal management of the possibilities acquired by the biotechnological revolution. I should name three examples in this respect:

a. Great Britain has founded the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, with a view to granting permission to units specialised in assisted reproduction techniques and to units involved in research in the demanding field of embryo experimentation (5).
b. In Greece the National Transplantation Organization, founded in 1999 coordinates the transplantation procedures (para. 3) (6), in an effort to confront the acute problem of organ shortage.

3. The third set of questions refers to democratic decision-making, that is how to arrive at a consensus on questions of biomedicine. Most of the European Parliaments and the Parliament of the European Union have already instituted technology assessment offices or parliamentary committees (7), which carry out studies and similar activities (i.e. conferences, round tables), with a twofold aim:

First, they want to enable their members to take balanced decisions based on objective and unbiased information solely of deputies.

Second, they wish to initiate or strengthen the public debate, by invoking the participation of the lay people. This is achieved by means of new techniques that have been developed, such as the consensus conferences, in order to assure that the opinion of the lay people, who are the ones to live with the new technologies, will be taken into consideration.

At the same time it has been realised that life sciences and biotechnology should be developed in a responsible way and in harmony with ethical values. The necessity to elaborate new criteria in order to proceed to legal solutions in this sensitive field of health care has been felt by States (8), the European Commission (9) and Churches, which have established bioethics bodies, in order to reconsider ethical principles and/or formulate new ones.

In this context I want to mention an initiative undertaken by the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy:
The Declaration of Bioethical Principles based on the Orthodox tradition, which has been promulgated at the 9th Annual Conference of the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy in Bucharest on 18 June 2002. The Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy (hereinafter: IAO) consists of Parliamentary delegations, whose members are Orthodox deputies. (10)

The Declaration was drafted by the Scientific Committee of the said Assembly (11), and it was adopted by the 9th Annual Conference of the IAO in Bucharest on 18 June 2002. As the Declaration is attached to this paper, I will refer to its main principles:

1. The respect for the individual, which entails respect for his/her autonomy and forbids any form of discrimination based on eugenic criteria; It is the responsibility of every religious, political, scientific and social carrier towards future generations to take all measures, so that man is not downgraded to a financial figure, a genetic parameter or a deterministic entity.

Every political resolution or legislative adjustment which refers to matters of biomedicine, medical technology, biotechnology and genetic engineering should necessarily respect the fact that every human being constitutes a unique irreplaceable and unrepeatable being; that this human being has by nature free will and forms a social entity with rights and obligations.

This respect for the individual autonomy and for the intrinsic value of every person is not only an element of orthodox doctrine but also an essential element of the democratic regime. One should keep in mind that the protection of the individual in every field, including the field of health, mirrors the development of democratic institutions and their embedding in society.

2. The respect for genetic integrity, which should be protected with regard to interventions other than the ones dictated for diagnostic, preventive or therapeutic purposes.

The individual should be protected in the three major aspects related to genetics: Genetic screening and testing, genetic interventions and the protection of genetic data. These procedures should be conducted on the basis of voluntariness, after receiving extensive, non-directive counselling and accompanied by protection of the confidentiality. Genetic intervention on somatic cells should be carried out for diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic purposes.

Further, discriminatory procedures aiming at the selection of individual or at the creation of human beings with predetermined characteristics should be strictly prohibited.

Another field merits strict scrutiny: While our knowledge is very limited we proceed to decisive steps that bring immediate consequences. We should not move to applications involving human cloning and the in-vivo alteration of the human genetic material, before we acquire all the necessary knowledge regarding these processes.

Finally, societies should consider among their priorities not only research but also the protection of human variability and the improvement of the conditions of the disabled.

3. Freedom of research, which should be combined with reverence towards man; the freedom of science grew with consistency in the countries of the Orthodox Christian tradition since the beginning of the Middle Ages and forms part of their cultural identity.

However, the use of most recent research achievements generates not only hopes, but also reasonable speculation on the way countries, societies, group of individuals and individuals may choose to take advantage of these immense possibilities. Man should be protected as a value, and social balance and traditions should be respected and remain intact. When scientific discovery is not combined with reverence towards man but is coupled with arrogance and prompted only by financial interests, the effect of science may be proved harmful upon humankind. Scientists must use their knowledge with discretion and prudence without preconception and short-sightedness.

4. The principle of equality, which should enable all people to have an equal access to the results of the biomedical development

5. The principle of altruism, which should guide individual decisions about organ transplantation and genetic research.

6. The principle of solidarity, which is of twofold nature: Solidarity towards individuals with disabilities and solidarity towards nations.

Solidarity towards individuals encompasses two options: a. the adoption of measures enabling these individuals to live a meaningful life and b. the prohibition of every form of discrimination.

States should adopt diagnostic measures, especially for the detection of disorders, diseases and disfunction, which manifest themselves at the early stages, in order to help children and adults to face their problem, to improve their condition and to develop their abilities.

Solidarity towards nations dictates a just distribution of wealth, transfer of biotechnological know - how to countries under development and prohibition of biological weapons;

7. The principle of transparency, which should govern decision-making processes in the fields of biomedical research and the resulting application thereof.

In countries, where the Orthodox Christian faith prevails, a "social perception" has been developed for various historical or social reasons on matters related to the human cycle of life: Birth, disease, death constitute concerns not only of the wider family but of the entire community. This perception leads today to the realization of the need for a consistent, systematic and continuous informing and updating of the wider social strata in matters related to health and mainly to the genetics of man. From the viewpoint of the scientific and political leadership, this process of informing and updating the wider public does not only form a tool for the creation of consensus but also an expression of mutual responsibility among the members of the human community. Transparency during the decision-making process referring to scientific experimentation and to its applications should constitute a fundamental prerequisite of the democratic regime/ education and updating of all citizens is absolutely indispensable, so that the biomedical evolution will be accessible to wide social strata. Lack of knowledge inevitably leads to lack of participation in the public debate on these issues. It is therefore the responsibility of political bodies to increase the level of public knowledge in this field, given that the adequate scientific and technological education of the population is the only way to safeguard the survival of a real democracy. Only on the basis of social acceptance both of the benefits and the risks entailed in new biotechnological methods and techniques may future steps be taken.

Technology assessment instruments such as the elaboration of multidisciplinary studies or the organization of consensus conferences should be promoted and incorporated into the legislative process.

8. The principle of tolerance, which should endorse a public dialogue open to different religious and philosophical streams;

9. The principle of responsibility, which should be understood as responsibility towards future generations and towards the environment. This responsibility should lead to a campaign against biological weapons and

10. The principle of vigilance, which dictates control and monitoring of the biotechnological evolution and elaboration of measures for effective crisis management.

These principles should provide the frame for legal activities in the biomedical field in the countries, which have formed the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy (12).

The above mentioned initiative does not serve only spiritual goals but is of a unique practical importance: In order to master the consequences of the genetic revolution national parliaments as well as the European Parliament should play the role of a bridge, trying to reconcile advances in medicine and science with human rights. Legal rules are needed, in order to translate the ethical conceptions and the policy considerations to binding laws, thereby assuring that the risks are properly assessed and kept to the minimum, so that interests of patients a non-patients alike as well as the interests of the scientific community are appropriately protected. In this difficult process the elaboration of principles based on the orthodox tradition could provide a valuable aid at the law - making process both at national and European level.

In its present phase of development Europe wants to attract the human, industrial and financial resources to develop and apply biotechnology in order to meet society's needs and increase its competitiveness. The success of this knowledge - based technology is estimated to create new opportunities for qualified jobs and to contribute to the economic development of the continent. By the year 2005 the European biotechnology market could be worth over EUR 100 billion. The European Commission aims to restore European leadership in life sciences and biotechnology research. A main objective is to ensure that the EU maintains competitiveness vis-a-vis major industrialised countries such as the United States and Japan.

In the frame of this process the importance of the ethical discussion has been already recognised. In the words of the European Commission: "To be at the front of developments, Europe should have the capacity for foresight/prospective analysis and the necessary expertise to help clarify the often complex issues for policy makers and the public, and to place them in their scientific and socio-economic context. The Commission welcomes the key role played by the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies since its creation in the early 1990s and proposes… to reinforce the networking with and between national ethical bodies" (13). Further the Commission will develop, jointly with the European Parliament outreach measures to inform about the analysis of ethical issues at the EU level.
While respecting cultural pluralism, the Commission will work with public and private partners to identify areas where it is possible to establish consensus on ethical guidelines/standards or best practice. Areas might include stem cell research,biobanks, xenotransplantation, genetic testing and use of animals in research. (14)

Man should take into consideration that Europe, as of now, is not a unity but a fragment: A fragment of nations, peoples, societies, political systems and perceptions of life, with a main reference point: The national state. The history of modernity in Europe is tantamount to the history of national states - national history, national interests, national economy etc.

And yet a feeling of commonness can be discerned in Europe: people, especially the intellectuals feel as part of a greater whole. We speak of European history, of the forming of a European conscience, distinguished but existing parallel with national conscience. The Spanish phlosopher Ortega y Gasset has reportedly answered a question related to the reasons, which made him leave his self - imposed Argentine exile and return to Spain, then under Franco, by saying: Europe is the only continent that has a content. How could one define this "European content"?

Paul Velary gives to the "European" following definition: "I view as Europeans those peoples who in their history have undergone three basic influences: a) that of Rome, which as a state and as a power dominated the world by virtue of its legal system and its administrative organisation; b) that of Christianity and its Judaic heritage; c) above all, that of ancient Greece, the highest attainment of humanism."

So the components of this definition are the anthropocentric conception of the ancient philosophy, the development of critical thought, the capacity to doubt and to criticise, on the one hand; man as a political being, a member of the city, participating in its affairs, on the other.

Besides these values Christianity presents its own contribution to the world of ideas, especially through the teaching of the Holy fathers of the Greek Orthodox Church: The principle of freedom, the principle of equality of all people and especially the equality between man and woman, the first traces of the rights to education and to health. Further the Greek inheritance is to be found in the organic survival of ancient humanistic virtue transformed into the Christian percept of universal redemption.

At this juncture we should not forget the role of Byzantium: It is the first European Empire. Its birth in the 4th century marks the starting point of the Christian Europe, enriched already by the experience of the Greco - roman cultural past. Therefore, Byzantium can be considered as the main builder of Christian Europe. Indeed, the Orthodox Byzantine Europe of the East played the dominant role in the development of Eastern European civilisation. It took over the roman organisational pattern, the antique philosophy, the models of antique life and seamlessly adapted them to the forms dictated by the imperatives of the new religion of Christianity. Culturally unified by the Greeks and spiritually unified by Constantinople's Orthodoxy, the Eastern part of Europe constitutes as much an integral part of Europe as the Western one, which split off from it.

Most of our shared values may be traced in the elements recognised by Paul Valery. Nowadays Europe finds itself in a crossroads again, and needs a concept for its future. It is the most interesting period, but also a dangerous one, given the many pressing problems of economic, political and social nature, which manifest themselves in almost all countries. Europe has to elaborate new principles, which can hold it together, not as a nation, which is not, but as a "cultural community" (Kulturgemeinschaft, κοινότητα πολιτιστικών αξιών), which it is, due to its classic, Chrisitan and Greco -roman tradition. This cultural tradition should serve as a basis while elaborating principles, which should govern, among others, our policies about natural resources, biotechnology or informatics. It is only by means of cultural values that we may overcome the national state and create our common European identity, leave behind us the national fragment and proceed to the European Unity.

ANNEX

I. Introduction

The objectives of the IAO were promulgated at the Chalkidiki Conference of July 3, 1993, which was organized by the Hellenic Parliament. These objectives are, among others: "The enhancement of the role of Orthodoxy within the framework of the European Union and the consolidation of Orthodoxy as an important and necessary political, cultural and spiritual entity towards the shaping of a new European reality" (article 3 of the Founding Act).

2. DECLARATION OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF BIOETHICS BASED ON THE ORTHODOX TRADITION

We, who represent the parliaments or groups of parliaments of our country in the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy,

Declare:

1) The rapid progress of biomedical sciences and the impressive results of related research and technological applications hold high promises for improving the quality of life and relief of pain via preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic means. We all welcome this progress with enthusiasm and high expectations.

2) The issues of bioethics affect the sacredness of man in an extremely pervasive way. They touch upon the beginning and end of human life, influence its form and determine the psychosomatic bond. Moreover, they stimulate the more profound aspects of human soul. For all these reasons, religions are entitled to express their positions that require caution, respect and understanding.

3) The freedom of science grew with consistency in the countries of the Orthodox Christian tradition since the beginning of the Middle Ages and forms part of their cultural identity.

4) However, the use of most recent research achievements generates not only hopes, but also reasonable speculation on the way countries, societies, group of individuals and individuals may choose to take advantage of these immense possibilities. Man should be protected as a value, and social balance and traditions should be respected and remain intact. When scientific discovery is not combined with reverence towards man but is coupled with arrogance and prompted only by financial interests, the effect of science may be proved harmful upon humankind.

5) Respect for human dignity and personal freedom in human societies and especially in the sector of health do not only contribute to the development of the individual, but also form an element of society's democratic organization.

6) A characteristic of the explosion of biomedical sciences is that its correct application is a greater achievement than its emergence. For this reason, our responsibility as politicians is to make sure that scientists will define, through regulating and controlling mechanisms, the safest possible boundaries in order to prevent biomedical progress from turning from a unique blessing to a destructive threat for human societies and individuals.

7) The Orthodox Christian tradition is characterized by an anthropology -namely, a theory on man- which is unique and very important, since it regards every human being as an image of God and recognizes as its destination the "likeness" and union of man with God.

8) Within the Orthodox Christian tradition, man is not considered only as an individual that is judged by his actions, but mainly as a person who is substantiated by his relationship with his fellowmen and with God.

9) An ethical assessment of contemporary scientific achievements of biomedicine should always take into consideration the following principles of respect:

a. Respect for time. While our knowledge is very limited we proceed to decisive steps that bring immediate consequences. We should not move to applications involving human cloning and the in-vivo alteration of the human genetic material, before we acquire all the necessary knowledge regarding these processes.

b. Respect for God's creation. Knowledge and curiosity are so essentially and deeply bound with the nature of man, that the danger of not limiting ourselves to therapeutic applications but proceed to the correction of what some may regard as "natural imperfections" is apparent. Consequently, along with gene therapy approaches, we may also provoke disastrous changes in human social conduct and relationships leading, perhaps, to genetic discrimination. Scientists must use their knowledge with discretion and prudence without preconception and shortsightedness.

c. Respect for human variability, "imperfections" and disabilities. The possibility to intervene in the quality and shape of our characteristics for reasons other than diagnostic, preventive or therapeutic opens the way to a society characterized by genetic discriminations, racism and eugenics; a society in which there will be room only for healthy and strong people, people with predetermined specifications. Societies should consider among their priorities not only research but also the protection of human variability and the improvement of the conditions of the disabled.

It is the responsibility of every religious, political, scientific and social carrier towards future generations to take all measures, so that man is not downgraded to a financial figure, a genetic parameter or a deterministic unit, and to avoid every form of racist discrimination of a eugenic character. At the same time, we will all work together so that priority be given to preserving human dignity over any kind of research goals and achievements as well as for the confidentiality of genetic and personal information.

The potential provided by biomedical progress and, more specifically, by genetic engineering and new reproductive approaches requires that the human genome and technological advancements in assisted reproduction be protected by all means from any form of self-interest, financial exploitation, eugenic orientation and arrogant domination.

d. Respect for human life from its conception until the moment of death. Every political resolution or legislative adjustment which refers to matters of biomedicine, medical technology, biotechnology and genetic engineering should necessarily respect the fact that every human being from his/her conception until his/her last breath constitutes a unique irreplaceable and unrepeatable being; that this human being has by nature free will, is sacred and transcendental in his/her essence and perspective, and forms a social entity with rights and obligations.

10) Human life is not perceived only as the existence of an individual, but also as one's co-existence with other individuals within a given environment. This ascertainment gives birth to the principle of responsibility and respect for the individual's autonomy, the environment and future human generations. This respect for the environment refers so much to the animals as to nature.

11) Responsibility towards future generations requires special attention with regard to the approval of germ-line therapy methods that will be passing on their effect to the descendants of the persons undergoing the therapy. At the same time, all forms of discriminatory treatment of individuals suffering from any kind of health problems should be excluded. Finally, the genetic identity of the individual should be protected with regard to interventions that do not have a diagnostic or therapeutic character or do not aim to prevent a disease.

12) The autonomy of the individual should be taken into consideration when referring to his/her status as patient or as research subject (consent to medical/genetic tests and medical interventions, non-directive counselling, protection of medical/genetic and personal data information) and with regard to his/her choices as a consumer or specialist in the fields of medicine and biology.

13) In countries, where the Orthodox Christian faith prevails, a "social perception" has been developed for various historical or social reasons on matters related to the human cycle of life: Birth, disease, death constitute concerns not only of the wider family but of the entire community. This perception leads today to the realization of the need for a consistent, systematic and continuous informing and updating of the wider social strata in matters related to health and mainly to the genetics of man. From the viewpoint of the scientific and political leadership, this process of informing and updating the wider public does not only form a tool for the creation of consensus but also an expression of mutual responsibility among the members of the human community. Transparency during the decision-making process referring to scientific experimentation and applications should constitute a fundamental prerequisite of the democratic regime.

14) We consider the correct education and updating on biomedical developments and especially on human genome advances of us politicians and of all citizens as absolutely indispensable. For this reason, we believe in the formation of independent committees on bioethics and deontology. Furthermore, the states should commit themselves to promoting education on bioethics and endorsing public dialogue, which should always be open to the various religious streams of thought. Technology assessment instruments such as the elaboration of multidisciplinary studies or the organization of consensus conferences should be promoted and incorporated into the legislative process. Statesmen should initiate special legislation in order to regulate the frame of scientific endeavours and to control medical activities in this field.

15) Professional bodies should also elaborate appropriate codes of conduct and guidelines for sensitive and controversial issues such as human assisted procreation or organ transplantation.

16) Mass media should act in this field in a thoughtful, professional and responsible way appropriately counselled by specialists.

17) Sometimes, the financial interests of companies may suppress time, just when research requires it. The alliance with time and thorough scientific knowledge through investigation is the greatest safety valve. The knowledge of experts on these specialized issues and its possible selective use guided only by financial interests is uncontrollable and may be proven dangerous, when it is not accompanied by a wide and correct updating of the society.

18) The welfare that accompanies biotechnological development and the expected financial growth should not minimize the effort towards a more just distribution of wealth on a national and international level as well as towards the progress of countries under development. Therefore, the dependency of the developing countries on the countries producing biotechnological knowledge through the monopoly of production and management of the new technological knowledge should not be prolonged. The principle of solidarity should govern state politics concerning this matter.

19) The production, use and deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and products should be subject to appropriate safeguards and monitoring, in order to prevent harm to human health, animals or the environment as a whole. Genetically engineered food supplies should be labelled.

20) Moreover, plans should be formulated in advance for the effective management of possible "biological crises" that may occur in the future. These measures should be such as to minimize all possible negative consequences due to these emergencies.

21) New knowledge should be used only for the benefit of humanity and not as a means of enriching the world's weaponry. The need to undertake a campaign aiming at the prohibition of "biological weapons" should become a common conscience.



Bibliography

1. See Gore, Albert, Jr. (1985): A Congressional Perspective in: Sandra Panem (Ed.): Biotechnology - Implications for Public Policy, Brookings Dialogues on Public Policy, p. 12- 18. …"I believe that biotechnology has more potential to reshape the world as we know it than any other technology besides nuclear power…. If the promise of representative democracy is to be redeemed, therefore, society must stimulate and sustain a wide public debate including scientists, business leaders, public policymakers, academics and others, in a discussion of what the true implications of technology are; what choices have to be made, and how those choices can best be made (p. 13)."

2. See the amended constitutional provisions in: Government Gazette A No. 84 / 2001-4-17. Also Ismini Kriari - Catranis: Bioethical Issues and Human Rights in Greece in: Law and the Human Genome Review, No. 16, 2002, pp. 37 - 57.

3. See Z/ Revisional Parliament, Report of the Revision Committee, Report by E. Venizelos, pp. 7, 10, 24; Reports by representatives of the political parties of the opposition see I. Varvitsiotis (New Democracy) pp. 85 (97); A. Skyllakos (Communist Party) pp. 129 (135); F. Kouvelis (Coalition of the Left and Progress) pp. 139(146).

4. The new article reads as follows:
"All persons shall enjoy full protection of their health and genetic identity. All persons shall be protected with regard to biomedical interventions as provided by law".
The genetic identity is to be understood as the genetic constitution of the individual, the inherited genetic pattern, which has to be protected against unlawful interventions seeking to modify it for reasons other than diagnostc, preventive or therapeutic.-
The Greek Constitution is the third in Europe to include a provision on genetic identity, besides the Swiss and the Portuguese Constitution. Apart from their legal importance the symbolic value of these constitutional provisions should not be underestimated: they mark the definite abandonment of the era of habeas corpus and the beginning of a new era, characterised by habeas identitatem geneticam.- The Swiss Federal Constitution in art. 119 para. B sect.2, incorporated therein after a referendum in 1992, does not use the term "genetic identity" but forbids genetic interventions to the germline and to embryos; see R.J. Schweitzer: Kommentar zur Bundesverfassung der Schweitzerischen Eidgenossenschaft vom 29. Mai 1874, Stand 1996, Art. 24 novies Rz. 3ff (52). The Portuguese art.26 para.3, incorporated to the Constitution in 1997 has a formulation about the protection of genetic identity similar to the Greek one; see Helena Pereira de Melo, O biodireito in: Daniel Serrao/Rui Nunes (Coordenacao): /Etica em Cuidados de Saude, Porto Editora, 1998, 171 - 182 (179).

5. See Ruth Deech (2002): The torn veil of ignorance in: Sinclair House Debates :"Who owns the human genome?, pp. 46 - 55. Two other countries, Iceland and Estonia have established gene banks, in order to gather DNA/s and health data of the whole population and make these, subject to certain restrictions, available to the scientific community for genetic research. Iceland has granted permission to a private company, whereas Estonia has opted for a publicly controlled main processor. The latter solution was considered as the most suitable way of maintaining a high level of protection of human rights and firm control over the process, both by the state and by a gene donor. These differences in the approach of the new perspectives reflect the variety of opinions referring to the optimal use of the new technologies.-

6. See M. Kourtis (2002): Transplantation Law, P.N. Sakkoulas Publications (Law and Economy), Athens, Greece (in Greek); for the previous regulations see: A. Varka - Adamis (1993): Transplantation Law, Athens, 1993 (in Greek).

7. In Greece the parliamentary special committee on technology assessment was established in 1997.

8. The National Bioethics Committee, operating under the Prime Minister, is established by Law 2666/18.12.1998. Its function is to examine the ethical, social and legal implications following the biomedical progress. The Committee submits its proposals as to the policy to be followed, cooperates with international organizations on these issues and takes all necessary steps to inform the public thereon.

9. The European Group of Ethics in Science and New Technologies since its creation in the early 1990s has played a significant role at the evaluation of difficult bioethical issues, such as human experimentation, stem cell research etc.

10. Members of the Assembly are the following countries: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Bulgaria, Georgia, New Yugoslavia, Greece, Esthonia, Kazakstan, Cyprus, Latvia, Belarus, Lithuania, Moldavia, Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, The Netherlands, Chechia, Finland and Uganda.

11. The Committee on Bioethics was established by the 8th General Assembly of the IAO which convened on Patmos, Greece, from 28 June to 2 July 2001, in acknowledgement of the great issues faced by science as well as society as a whole, following the great technological achievements of the last decades. Mr. James Samios of the National Parliament of Australia has been elected chairman of this committee. Furthermore a scientific committee was established, its objective being to approach bioethical issues within historical constants and values of the Orthodox tradition.
Professor Ismini Kriari - Catranis was appointed chairperson of the scientific committee; the following scientists were appointed as members thereof: Dr. Algimantas Paulauskas, Professor of Genetics from Lithuania; Dr. Marios Kariolou, Senior Molecular Genetist at the Institute of Neurology and Genetics from Cyprus; Dr. Emanouil Stoicesku, Executive Director at the College of Physicians in Bucharest, Romania; Father N. Hatzinikolaou, Chairman of the Bioethics Committee of the Holy Synod of the Greek Orthoodox Church and Archpriest Dimistri Smyrnoff, Co - Chairman of the Council on biomedical ethics at the Moscow Patriarchate. This six-member committee was entrusted with the task to elaborate principles based on the orthodox tradition, which should govern recent advances in the fields of biology and medicine.

12. The Greek Orthodox Church has expresses its interest in bioethical issues by adopting following measures:
a. It has convened the Bioethics Council of the Holy Synod; its goal is to prepare studies on the current biomedical questions and express the orthodox views thereon. It is composed of theologists, medical doctors, genetists and lawyers. It has already formulated a series of statements on organ transplantation, which has been adopted by the Holy Synod of the Greek Church and it has prepared another series of statements on human assisted procreation.
b. It has founded the Center for Biomedical Ethics, which serves as a forum for interdisciplinary dialogues on these questions. It has organised three cycles of postgraduate seminars, attended by health care professionals (doctors and nurses), lawyers and theologists, on the following topics: Euthanasia, Embryonic life/ Human assisted procreation and Genomics.See www.bioethics.org.gr

13. Life sciences and biotechnology - A strategy for Europe, European Commission, COM (2002) 27, p. 20.and p. 40 (actions 14-16).

14. Op. cit. p. 40, Action 16.