Obstruction and obfuscation: Regulatory barriers to human embryo research in New Zealand

Q2 Social Sciences Medical Law International Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI:10.1177/0968533220984227
J. Snelling
{"title":"Obstruction and obfuscation: Regulatory barriers to human embryo research in New Zealand","authors":"J. Snelling","doi":"10.1177/0968533220984227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last half-century, significant innovations have occurred in the fields of embryology and human assisted reproduction as a result of human embryo research. This dynamic and ethically complex field is generally subject to extensive regulatory oversight. This article examines New Zealand’s legal framework governing such research. It argues that, despite the core legislative objective of establishing a robust and flexible framework, the current legal regime established under the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004 is a classic example of regulatory failure. While not a necessary outcome of the devolved, principles-based regulatory scheme, this failure is primarily due to the perceived lack of authority and independence of the statutory policymaking body established under the Act, as well as the broader regulatory environment in which it operates. It argues that a confluence of problems, including Ministerial overreach as well as a lack of transparency and accountability on the part of decision makers, undermine the legitimacy of the current embryo research policy. This regime not only unjustifiably prevents the conduct of valuable embryo research, but also hinders simple quality improvement practices undertaken in the course of ordinary IVF service provision. This article concludes that, given the significance of embryo research as well as the associated ethical and legal challenges, the issue of embryo research should be remitted back to Parliament to legislate directly as a matter of urgency.","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"20 1","pages":"339 - 367"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0968533220984227","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0968533220984227","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over the last half-century, significant innovations have occurred in the fields of embryology and human assisted reproduction as a result of human embryo research. This dynamic and ethically complex field is generally subject to extensive regulatory oversight. This article examines New Zealand’s legal framework governing such research. It argues that, despite the core legislative objective of establishing a robust and flexible framework, the current legal regime established under the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004 is a classic example of regulatory failure. While not a necessary outcome of the devolved, principles-based regulatory scheme, this failure is primarily due to the perceived lack of authority and independence of the statutory policymaking body established under the Act, as well as the broader regulatory environment in which it operates. It argues that a confluence of problems, including Ministerial overreach as well as a lack of transparency and accountability on the part of decision makers, undermine the legitimacy of the current embryo research policy. This regime not only unjustifiably prevents the conduct of valuable embryo research, but also hinders simple quality improvement practices undertaken in the course of ordinary IVF service provision. This article concludes that, given the significance of embryo research as well as the associated ethical and legal challenges, the issue of embryo research should be remitted back to Parliament to legislate directly as a matter of urgency.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阻碍和混淆:新西兰人类胚胎研究的监管障碍
在过去的半个世纪里,胚胎学和人类辅助生殖领域发生了重大的创新,这是人类胚胎研究的结果。这个充满活力和伦理复杂的领域通常受到广泛的监管监督。本文考察了新西兰管理此类研究的法律框架。它认为,尽管立法的核心目标是建立一个健全和灵活的框架,但根据《2004年人类辅助生殖技术法案》建立的现行法律制度是监管失败的典型例子。虽然这不是权力下放的、基于原则的监管计划的必然结果,但这种失败主要是由于人们认为根据该法设立的法定决策机构缺乏权威和独立性,以及该机构运作的更广泛的监管环境。它认为,包括部长越权以及决策者缺乏透明度和问责制在内的一系列问题削弱了当前胚胎研究政策的合法性。这种制度不仅不合理地阻碍了有价值的胚胎研究的进行,而且还阻碍了在提供普通试管婴儿服务过程中进行的简单的质量改进实践。本文的结论是,鉴于胚胎研究的重要性以及相关的伦理和法律挑战,胚胎研究问题应作为紧急事项退还给议会直接立法。
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
Medical Law International
Medical Law International Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The scope includes: Clinical Negligence. Health Matters Affecting Civil Liberties. Forensic Medicine. Determination of Death. Organ and Tissue Transplantation. End of Life Decisions. Legal and Ethical Issues in Medical Treatment. Confidentiality. Access to Medical Records. Medical Complaints Procedures. Professional Discipline. Employment Law and Legal Issues within NHS. Resource Allocation in Health Care. Mental Health Law. Misuse of Drugs. Legal and Ethical Issues concerning Human Reproduction. Therapeutic Products. Medical Research. Cloning. Gene Therapy. Genetic Testing and Screening. And Related Topics.
期刊最新文献
Challenges for the legislation enabling egg donation in Switzerland. Book review: Not What the Bus Promised: Health Governance After Brexit Accessing third-party research databases for criminal investigations: Enhancing legal protections and safeguarding public interests Book review: The Disability Bioethics Reader Book review: The Right to Be Protected From Committing Suicide
×
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