2. Developing the project

2.1 The dialogue process

The Bioethics Council strongly supports the use of ‘dialogue’ as a means of building deeper understanding of one’s own views and the views of others. Dialogue is not about persuading people to adopt a particular position. Instead, it involves people – often with very different or opposing perspectives – meeting together in an environment of mutuality and trust; expressing themselves without fear of attack or judgment; and exploring, clarifying and developing their own thinking and that of others. It is a very different process from traditional forms of government consultation.

As a means of shaping future decisions about biotechnology in New Zealand, dialogue offers some important benefits. It gives the public the chance to articulate and understand a wide range of values and beliefs. The face-to-face exchanges allow constructive relationships to develop between people with opposing viewpoints. And it allows the Government to better understand what is at stake for people, and how they expect to see their values and beliefs expressed in political and economic decisions.

Some reflections on the xenotransplantation dialogue – what worked well, how it could have been improved – are presented in Appendix A.

2.2 Dialogue events

Based on our experience of running dialogue events in 2004, the Bioethics Council decided to offer a series of two-stage meetings and hui. Participants who attended the initial session would be invited to ‘reconvene’ for further discussions at a follow-up session a few weeks later.

Eight reconvening events (16 sessions in all) were scheduled across the country. All events were open, but two provided opportunities to focus on Māori perspectives in a Tikanga Māori environment, and another provided for open participation in a bicultural environment.

Participants included people or groups already on the Bioethics Council’s database and others who found out about the events from the Council’s publicity and the media. The venues and numbers attending each event are shown in Appendix A.

The sessions were conducted by trained facilitators, who had been briefed on xenotransplantation by the principal advisor of the New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority. At least one member of the Bioethics Council also attended each event, gave a brief introduction to xenotransplantation, and outlined the present regulatory environment.

The Bioethics Council’s discussion document, The Cultural, Spiritual and Ethical Aspects of Xenotransplantation: Animal-to-Human Transplantation was circulated to participants beforehand. Although not all had read the document before the first session, it provided a starting point for discussion of the following broad themes:

• What is xenotransplantation and why is it being considered?
• How well does it work and what are the risks?
• Xenotransplantation and cultural, spiritual and ethical issues:
  • spirituality, culture and human need
  • Māori and xenotransplantation
  • the interests of animals
  • individual rights and public risk
  • decisions about xenotransplantation in New Zealand.

At the first session of each event, the nature and purpose of ‘dialogue’ was explained to participants. Working in small groups, they were invited to identify key cultural, ethical and spiritual issues that concerned them. Their comments were recorded on flip charts and presented to the full group, who could then record further responses or reflections. At the end of the session, participants were asked to do some ‘homework’ – in the form of discussing xenotransplantation issues with friends, family and others – before the reconvened session.

At this second session, participants reviewed the results of their ‘homework’ in new small groups, recording new ideas and responses. They continued to explore specific issues, the exact meaning of ‘cultural’ ‘ethical’ and ‘spiritual’, and the significance of these concepts to xenotransplantation. Participants had the opportunity to provide a written evaluation at the end of each session.

2.3 Online discussion forum

A web-based discussion forum began in February 2005. The themes for discussion were set out along broadly the same lines as in the discussion document.

Over a four month period, the online discussion forum received almost 2,200 visits. Of the 400 registrants, there were 91 contributors on 30 topics. More than 350 comments were posted.

2.4 Written submissions

People were invited to make written submissions on xenotransplantation, using forms inserted into the discussion document and also available on the Bioethics Council website. Submitters could base their submissions around 12 key questions exploring the themes outlined in the discussion document, and most chose to do so. However, submitters were free to respond in any way they wished, and some chose to focus only on particular issues. We received 289 submissions.

[ Previous Page | Next Page ]