The primary goal of bioethical standards is to provide decision makers at the level of local self-government with a list of concrete guidelines that should lead to an improvement in the relationship between people and the environment (primarily but not exclusively the living environment) with the ultimate aim of preserving health and improving the quality of life of people, and protecting biodiversity and other natural resources with respect to local economic plans and choices (‘sustainable development’).
 

The process of defining bioethical standards was conceived in a way that builds on the theoretical basis of ‘European bioethics’, in other words the bioethics of Fritz Jahr but also Van Rensselaer Potter and other ‘compatible’ thinkers. Using the multi-perspective confrontation method, their ideas and attitudes were integrated into an orientation platform. This platform was presented to local stakeholders in each of the three partner communities (Mali Lošinj, Kršan, Bakar) – representatives of local self-government, tourist boards, NGOs and other relevant  takeholders, whose arguments influenced the revision of the list of standards. Local governments will have the opportunity to use the final list of standards as a basis for strategic thinking about development and to systematically increase the quality of life in their area, but also as a kind of ‘tourist ID’. Furthermore, it is expected that local people will achieve additional bioethical awareness that will make it impossible to make certain mistakes and prevent the repeating of the mistakes of other areas.

The list of bioethical standards consists of three groups of standards that are intertwined. For practical reasons, these groups are called ‘animals’, ‘plants’, and ‘people and the environment’. When it comes to standardising our relationship towards animals and plants, we are aware that we are suggesting many novelties that should take into account specific local characteristics and be introduced gradually rather than requiring sudden changes in practices and awareness. Adhering to some of the standards could lead to changing the balance in a specific ecosystem (e.g. encouraging a vegetarian diet will lead to increased cultivation and consumption of plants), while certain others could signalise political preferences (e.g. TTIP free zones). The last group of standards named ‘people and the environment’ is primarily aimed at benefitting a particular group or the entire community. It is partly based on examples of good practice (such as the Healthy Cities project) where public health institutions have been involved in the design and implementation of activities. A part of bioethical standards directly includes public health programmes aimed at prevention or care for individual groups in society.
 

Introducing any kind of limitations on our well-established behaviour – among other things, by accepting bioethical standards – actually means trying to return to a ‘natural’ behaviour by means of which we expect to facilitate the survival of nature as we know it. However, in doing so, we forget that had we remained in harmony with nature, we would have eaten both animals and plants without questioning it, and that awareness of vegetarianism and the problems that arise with regard to the consumption of animals have occurred as side effects of the development of the frontal lobe and consequently empathy. It is not impossible that one day, due to a better knowledge about plants and their senses, people will also be stung with remorse because of the consumption of plants. For the moment, there is obviously a significant difference in perception of our duties towards animals and our relationship with plants. As a result, we have to admit that here we deviate from the theoretical presumptions of Fritz Jahr and do not respect the sacredness of life but rather the holiness of choice, with the idea that it is neither necessary nor possible to unconditionally preserve every life, but that it can and must be unconditionally promoted. After all, the ambition of bioethical standards is to make the world a better place rather than to put an end to it – even in its existing imperfect form.

 

Participation at conferences

2017

2016

2015