Customizing conception: a survey of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the resulting social, ethical, and legal dilemmas.

Duke law and technology review Pub Date : 2002-07-23
Jason C Roberts
{"title":"Customizing conception: a survey of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the resulting social, ethical, and legal dilemmas.","authors":"Jason C Roberts","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>One in six American couples experience difficulties conceiving a child. With fertility rates at an all time low, the business of treating infertility is booming. However, due to the United States prohibition on government funding for embryonic research, the $4 billion industry of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) has been incompletely monitored and largely removed from oversight. Additionally, due to the fervent abortion debate, in vitro fertilization (IVF) was introduced in the United States without a research phase and procedures have been forced to evolve in the private sector. Thus, the checks and balances on medical innovation that are generally imposed by the federal government for consumer protection are lacking. Decisions about when to go from the laboratory to the clinic are often left solely to the discretion of private physicians. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is just one of many such treatments offered by these clinics. This iBrief examines how, why, and to whom the reproductive procedure of PGD is offered. In addition, it evaluates the prospective effects to society that arise when PGD is used for sex selection and for nontherapeutic or enhancement purposes. Finally, it explores whether and how to regulate PGD in the United States by investigating approaches to policy making that have been adopted by the United Kingdom.</p>","PeriodicalId":87176,"journal":{"name":"Duke law and technology review","volume":" ","pages":"E1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Duke law and technology review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One in six American couples experience difficulties conceiving a child. With fertility rates at an all time low, the business of treating infertility is booming. However, due to the United States prohibition on government funding for embryonic research, the $4 billion industry of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) has been incompletely monitored and largely removed from oversight. Additionally, due to the fervent abortion debate, in vitro fertilization (IVF) was introduced in the United States without a research phase and procedures have been forced to evolve in the private sector. Thus, the checks and balances on medical innovation that are generally imposed by the federal government for consumer protection are lacking. Decisions about when to go from the laboratory to the clinic are often left solely to the discretion of private physicians. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is just one of many such treatments offered by these clinics. This iBrief examines how, why, and to whom the reproductive procedure of PGD is offered. In addition, it evaluates the prospective effects to society that arise when PGD is used for sex selection and for nontherapeutic or enhancement purposes. Finally, it explores whether and how to regulate PGD in the United States by investigating approaches to policy making that have been adopted by the United Kingdom.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
定制概念:植入前遗传学诊断和由此产生的社会,伦理和法律困境的调查。
六分之一的美国夫妇遇到怀孕困难。由于生育率一直处于低位,治疗不孕症的业务正在蓬勃发展。然而,由于美国禁止政府资助胚胎研究,价值40亿美元的辅助生殖技术(ART)产业一直没有得到完全的监督,而且基本上没有受到监督。此外,由于激烈的堕胎辩论,体外受精(IVF)在美国引入时没有经过研究阶段,程序被迫在私营部门发展。因此,联邦政府通常为保护消费者而对医疗创新进行的制衡是缺乏的。何时从实验室到诊所的决定往往完全由私人医生自行决定。胚胎植入前遗传学诊断(PGD)只是这些诊所提供的许多此类治疗之一。这篇简介探讨了PGD的生殖程序是如何、为什么以及向谁提供的。此外,它还评估了当PGD用于性别选择和非治疗或增强目的时对社会产生的预期影响。最后,通过调查英国所采用的政策制定方法,探讨了美国是否以及如何监管PGD。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Political Economy of Utopia Hacking the Internet of Things: Vulnerabilities, Dangers, and Legal Responses Slave to the Algorithm? Why a 'Right to an Explanation' Is Probably Not the Remedy You Are Looking For Legal Nature of Emails: A Comparative Perspective Reasonable Expectations of Privacy Settings: Social Media and the Stored Communications Act
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1