Kirkon vai valtion kirjat? : Uskontokuntasidonnaisuuden ongelma Suomen väestökirjanpidossa 1839-1904

The Population Register – run by the Church or the state? The problem posed by the obligation to belong to a religious community in the registration of births and deaths in Finland between 1839 and 1904 The Lutheran Church of Finland is the nation’s largest church; approximately 82 per cent of Finns were members in 2007. The Church ran an official register of its members until 1999, when the state then undertook this task. The registration of births and deaths by the Church has a long history dating back to the 17th century, when Bishop Johannes Gezelius Sr. decreed that all parish members would have to be recorded in parish registers. These registers were used to control how well parish members knew the Christian doctrine and, gradually, also if they were literate. Additionally, the Church attempted to ensure by means of the parish registers that parish members went to Holy Communion annually. Since everyone was a member of the Lutheran Church, the state also took advantage of the parish registers and used them for the purposes of tax collection and conscription. The main research theme of “The Population Register – run by the Church or the state?” goes back to these times. The actual research period covers the years of 1839–1904. At that time Finland was under Russian rule, although autonomous. In the late 19th century the press and different associations in Finland began to engage in public debate, and the country started moving from a submissive society to a civic one. The identity of the Lutheran Church also became more prominent when the Church Act and the General Synod were realised in 1869. A few years earlier, municipal and parish administrations had been separated, but the general registration of births and deaths was left to the Church to see to. In compliance with the constitution of the country, all the inhabitants in principle still had to be Lutheran. In practice, the situation was different. The religious and ideological realms diversified, and the Lutheran concept of religion was no longer acceptable to everyone. The conflict was reflected in the registration of births and deaths, which was linked to the Lutheran Church and its parish registers. Nobody was allowed to leave the Church, there was no civil register, and the Lutheran Church did not consent to record unbaptized children in the parish registers. Therefore such children were left without civil rights. Thus the obligation to belong to a religious community had become a problem in the registration of births and deaths. The Lutheran clergy also appealed to the 1723 privileges, according to which they had been exempted from the drawing up of additional population registers. In 1889 Finland passed the Dissenters Act. By virtue of this act the Baptists and the Methodists left the state Church, but this was not the case with the members of the free churches. The freethinkers had to retain their church membership, as the law did not apply to them. This meant that the unbaptized children of the members of the free churches or those of freethinkers were still not entered in any registers. The children were not able to go to school, work for the state or legally marry. Neither were they able to inherit property, as they did not legally exist. The system of parish registers was created when everyone was required to be a member of the Lutheran Church, but it did not work when liberal attitudes eventually penetrated the sphere of religion, too. The government´s measures to solve the problem were slow and cautious, partly because Finland was part of Russia, partly because there were only about 100 unbaptized children. As the problem group was small and the state´s resources were limited, no general civil register was established. The state accepted the fact that in spite of the problems, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the congregations of dissenters were the only official establishments to run populations registers in the country, and for social purposes, too. In 1900 the Diet of Finland finally approved a limited civil register, which unbaptized children and unregistered foreigners would be recorded in. Due to political reasons the civil register did not come into existence until 1917, after the actual research period.

Juutalaisvastaisuus suomalaisissa aikakauslehdissä ja kirjallisuudessa 1918-1944

Anti-Semitism existed in Finland during the whole period covered by this study. The immoral acts associated with Jews in the articles were mostly regarded as universal habits, qualities and/or modes of action, that is, unconnected with any particular Finnish Jew. Researchers have tried to explain anti-Semitism in several ways. The theory of Jews as outsiders has been a popular explanation as well as xenophobia, chimerical anti-Semitism and the socio-economic models. The main sources of this study have been over 400 Finnish periodicals and magazines, literature and text books published between 1918 and 1944. This vast number of magazines includes those of the army and the civil guard, religion, humour and the papers of the Finnish extreme right. One can see a distinct foreign and especially German influence in the subjects and phraseology of Finnish anti-Semitic writings between 1918 and 1944. Several known Finnish anti-Semitic writers had some kind of link with Germany. Some Finnish organisations and societies were openly anti-Semitic during this period. There had been cycles in the activity of anti-Semitic writing in Finland, obvious peaks appearing in 1918 1919, 1929 1931, 1933 1938 and 1942 1944. The reason for the 1918 1919 activity was the civil rights which were granted to the Jews in Finland, and the Russian Bolshevik revolution. The worldwide depression from 1929 to 1932 seem to be the reason for new anti-Semitic writing activity. The rise of National Socialism in Germany and the influence this phenomenon had in Finland was the reason for the peak during 1933 1938. During the continuation war 1942 1944 National Socialist Germany was fighting side-by-side with Finland and their anti-Semitic propaganda found easier access to Finland. Of the 433 magazines, journals and newspapers which were used in this study, 71 or 16.4 per cent had at least one article that can be identified as anti-Semitic; especially the magazines of national socialists and other extreme right parties were making anti-Semitic annotations. There were about 50 people known to have written anti-Semitic articles. At least half of these known writers had studied at the university, including as many as 10 priests. Over and above these, there was an even larger number of people who wrote under a pseudonym. The material used suggested that anti-Semitism was not very popular in Finland between 1918 and 1944. Anti-Semitic articles appeared mostly in the magazines of the extreme right, but their circulation was not very large. A proof of the slight influence of these extreme right anti-Semitic ideas is that, beside the tightening of policy towards Jewish immigrants in 1938 and the handing over of eight of these refugees to Germany in 1942, the official policy of Finland never became anti-Semitic. As was stated before, despite the cycles in the number of writings, there does not appear to have been any noticeable change in public opinion. One must also remember that most Finns had not at that period actually met a Jew. The material used suggests that between 1918 and 1944 the so-called Jewish question was seemingly unimportant for most Finns and their attitude to Jews and Jewishness can be described as neutral.

Yhteisöllisyys juutalaisessa kansallisuusajattelussa ja Israelin valtion itsenäisyysjulistuksessa

The Idea of Community in the Jewish National Thinking and in the Proclamation of Independence The aim of this study is to clarify the idea of community in the Jewish national thinking and in the Proclamation of Independence of the State of Israel in 1948. The method is the community analysis. The values of the culture are studied by two- and threefold dimensions on the arena. On the field of that arena one can find the society of order, the society of pressure, the societies made by mosaics and the societies that are breaking apart. The community way of behaving means, that the individuals voluntarily follow common values. The earliest Jewish ideals elevated the concept of unity among the people. The reality in the society was different especially in Roman times when the religious and national thinking was fragmented into four different main views. During the Diaspora the religious tradition mostly warned against pursuing a Jewish state, but many forms of Anti-Judaism and the new national thinking in the nineteenth century created the Zionist movement. The religious Jewish people did not rely on the earthy nationalism and when some of them later chose Zionism, they stressed the religious aspects in governing the state. The cultural Zionists preferred a slower and more low key spiritual way of change. The Revisionists saw no alternatives but to use military force. Many in the majority, the Labour movement, hoped that the progress brought to the region by Zionism would change the minds of opponents. The general appearance of the proclamation is optimistic. It characterizes national and political unity gathering people who think differently and who come from different factions of the Jewish political and cultural orientation. These people can be placed on different corners in the community analysis. The proclamation concentrates on state and administrative points of view. It aims at a state for the Jews, and the Jewishness of the state is more clearly seen in later legislation. The hope for co-operation from all sides was clearly articulated. The central aim was the security of the Jews. The proclamation has a community quotation because it aimed to build up a net of cooperation. The vision of building a nation of their own is balanced by the collaboration with the Arabs and the international community. In the same roclamation the individual civil rights are side by side with the Prophets thoughts about peace and justice. The Proclamation describes a society of a good order which aims at uniting the people. In the midst of grave difficulties a noble proclamation of national and international co-operation was created. It was not taken for granted that the ideals would be realized. The care of the national homeland could become egocentric nationalism and the attention to the Prophets heritage could turn to emphasizing strict religious rules or to isolation from others. The emphasis of civil rights could turn to assimilation or in other words to other kinds of values in their own country.

Patents, Ethics and Stem Cell Research : The Case of hESC Innovation in Australia, Europe and the United States

Embryonic stem cells offer potentially a ground-breaking insight into health and diseases and are said to offer hope in discovering cures for many ailments unimaginable few years ago. Human embryonic stem cells are undifferentiated, immature cells that possess an amazing ability to develop into almost any body cell such as heart muscle, bone, nerve and blood cells and possibly even organs in due course. This remarkable feature, enabling embryonic stem cells to proliferate indefinitely in vitro (in a test tube), has branded them as a so-called miracle cure . Their potential use in clinical applications provides hope to many sufferers of debilitating and fatal medical conditions. However, the emergence of stem cell research has resulted in intense debates about its promises and dangers. On the one hand, advocates hail its potential, ranging from alleviating and even curing fatal and debilitating diseases such as Parkinson s, diabetes, heart ailments and so forth. On the other hand, opponents decry its dangers, drawing attention to the inherent risks of human embryo destruction, cloning for research purposes and reproductive cloning eventually. Lately, however, the policy battles surrounding human embryonic stem cell innovation have shifted from being a controversial research to scuffles within intellectual property rights. In fact, the ability to obtain patents represents a pivotal factor in the economic success or failure of this new biotechnology. Although, stem cell patents tend to more or less satisfy the standard patentability requirements, they also raise serious ethical and moral questions about the meaning of the exclusions on ethical or moral grounds as found in European and to an extent American and Australian patent laws. At present there is a sort of a calamity over human embryonic stem cell patents in Europe and to an extent in Australia and the United States. This in turn has created a sense of urgency to engage all relevant parties in the discourse on how best to approach patenting of this new form of scientific innovation. In essence, this should become a highly favoured patenting priority. To the contrary, stem cell innovation and its reliance on patent protection risk turmoil, uncertainty, confusion and even a halt on not only stem cell research but also further emerging biotechnology research and development. The patent system is premised upon the fundamental principle of balance which ought to ensure that the temporary monopoly awarded to the inventor equals that of the social benefit provided by the disclosure of the invention. Ensuring and maintaining this balance within the patent system when patenting human embryonic stem cells is of crucial contemporary relevance. Yet, the patenting of human embryonic stem cells raises some fundamental moral, social and legal questions. Overall, the present approach of patenting human embryonic stem cell related inventions is unsatisfactory and ineffective. This draws attention to a specific question which provides for a conceptual framework for this work. That question is the following: how can the investigated patent offices successfully deal with patentability of human embryonic stem cells? This in turn points at the thorny issue of application of the morality clause in this field. In particular, the interpretation of the exclusions on ethical or moral grounds as found in Australian, American and European legislative and judicial precedents. The Thesis seeks to compare laws and legal practices surrounding patentability of human embryonic stem cells in Australia and the United States with that of Europe. By using Europe as the primary case study for lessons and guidance, the central goal of the Thesis then becomes the determination of the type of solutions available to Europe with prospects to apply such to Australia and the United States. The Dissertation purports to define the ethical implications that arise with patenting human embryonic stem cells and intends to offer resolutions to the key ethical dilemmas surrounding patentability of human embryonic stem cells and other morally controversial biotechnology inventions. In particular, the Thesis goal is to propose a functional framework that may be used as a benchmark for an informed discussion on the solution to resolving ethical and legal tensions that come with patentability of human embryonic stem cells in Australian, American and European patent worlds. Key research questions that arise from these objectives and which continuously thread throughout the monograph are: 1. How do common law countries such as Australia and the United States approach and deal with patentability of human embryonic stem cells in their jurisdictions? These practices are then compared to the situation in Europe as represented by the United Kingdom (first two chapters), the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Patent Office decisions (Chapter 3 onwards) in order to obtain a full picture of the present patenting procedures on the European soil. 2. How are ethical and moral considerations taken into account at patent offices investigated when assessing patentability of human embryonic stem cell related inventions? In order to assess this part, the Thesis evaluates how ethical issues that arise with patent applications are dealt with by: a) Legislative history of the modern patent system from its inception in 15th Century England to present day patent laws. b) Australian, American and European patent offices presently and in the past, including other relevant legal precedents on the subject matter. c) Normative ethical theories. d) The notion of human dignity used as the lowest common denominator for the interpretation of the European morality clause. 3. Given the existence of the morality clause in form of Article 6(1) of the Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions which corresponds to Article 53(a) European Patent Convention, a special emphasis is put on Europe as a guiding principle for Australia and the United States. Any room for improvement of the European morality clause and Europe s current manner of evaluating ethical tensions surrounding human embryonic stem cell inventions is examined. 4. A summary of options (as represented by Australia, the United States and Europe) available as a basis for the optimal examination procedure of human embryonic stem cell inventions is depicted, whereas the best of such alternatives is deduced in order to create a benchmark framework. This framework is then utilised on and promoted as a tool to assist Europe (as represented by the European Patent Office) in examining human embryonic stem cell patent applications. This method suggests a possibility of implementing an institution solution. 5. Ultimately, a question of whether such reformed European patent system can be used as a founding stone for a potential patent reform in Australia and the United States when examining human embryonic stem cells or other morally controversial inventions is surveyed. The author wishes to emphasise that the guiding thought while carrying out this work is to convey the significance of identifying, analysing and clarifying the ethical tensions surrounding patenting human embryonic stem cells and ultimately present a solution that adequately assesses patentability of human embryonic stem cell inventions and related biotechnologies. In answering the key questions above, the Thesis strives to contribute to the broader stem cell debate about how and to which extent ethical and social positions should be integrated into the patenting procedure in pluralistic and morally divided democracies of Europe and subsequently Australia and the United States.