Health Union raises bioethical questions ranging from resource allocation and risk balancing to respect for specific bioethical prohibitions, as an analysis of the European Parliament’s proposal for such a union shows. To date, European Union (EU) health law has succeeded in avoiding or circumscribing such questions, leading to the limited and inconsistent patchwork of EU bioethical provisions we currently have. Can this continue with a Health Union? This article argues that whilst full harmonisation is neither possible nor desirable, Health Union should entail a deepening of bioethical integration. This should occur via a robust legislative process involving citizen panels and ethical advisory group input; if Treaty change occurs, this process could be included in primary law. This is so for three reasons. First, addressing Health Union’s unavoidable bioethical questions coherently and openly reduces the risk of inadequate protection and, conversely, of interest groups “smuggling in” unsupported answers. Second, this will ensure respect for primary law, including Article 2 TEU and Article 3 CFR. Third, EU biolaw offers a middle ground between limited national and weak international human rights law on bioethics, whilst also consolidating European identity.

中文翻译：

---

健康联盟和生物伦理联盟：希波克拉底需要苏格拉底吗？

健康联盟提出了从资源分配和风险平衡到尊重特定的生物伦理禁令的生物伦理问题，正如对欧洲议会对此类联盟提案的分析所示。迄今为止，欧盟 (EU) 卫生法成功地避免或限制了此类问题，导致我们目前拥有的欧盟生物伦理条款的拼凑有限且不一致。这可以通过健康联盟继续吗？本文认为，虽然完全协调既不可能也不可取，但健康联盟应该深化生物伦理整合。这应该通过一个涉及公民小组和道德咨询小组意见的强有力的立法程序来实现；如果条约发生变化，这一过程可能会被纳入基本法。之所以如此，是因为三个原因。第一的，以一致和公开的方式解决 Health Union 不可避免的生物伦理问题，可降低保护不足的风险，反之，利益集团“走私”无依据的答案的风险。其次，这将确保尊重主要法律，包括 TEU 第 2 条和 CFR 第 3 条。第三，欧盟生物法在有限的国家和薄弱的国际生物伦理人权法之间提供了一个中间立场，同时也巩固了欧洲的身份。