Incapacitous patients, assisted reproductive technology, and the importance of informed consent

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Legal Studies Pub Date : 2023-04-20 DOI:10.1017/lst.2023.10
Lisa Cherkassky
{"title":"Incapacitous patients, assisted reproductive technology, and the importance of informed consent","authors":"Lisa Cherkassky","doi":"10.1017/lst.2023.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The principle of self-determination has gained significant judicial support over the last three decades, and the choice to procreate using assisted reproductive technology is a clear example of our right to choose a treatment that enhances our personal lives. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as amended in 2008) stipulates that each party must give written, informed consent to ensure that our reproductive materials are used within strict parameters. However, the growing number of posthumous conception cases in several jurisdictions has raised concerns, particularly in situations where gametes are extracted from incapacitous patients without their consent, leading to posthumous parenthood. The landmark case of Y v A Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWCOP 18 caused significant concern when it authorised the retrieval, storage and use of sperm from a suspected brain stem dead man for procreative purposes under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It has never been known to be in the ‘best interests’ of a patient who lacks capacity to procreate in English law, and the consequences of this decision could be highly significant, raising questions about the exploitation of incapacitous patients and the misuse of genetic material. The decision has since been confirmed as the correct approach by the Court of Protection in Re X (Catastrophic Injury: Collection and Storage of Sperm) [2022] EWCOP 48, and a public consultation has now been opened by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. This paper examines the rigorous consent regime of the 1990 Act and the ethical complexities of retrieving gametes from incapacitous patients for procreative purposes. It will be determined that the 1990 Act's preference for a rigorous consent regime for public policy reasons is appropriate, and any alternative forms of consent could open a slippery slope to the unethical use of vulnerable individuals for their reproductive materials.","PeriodicalId":46121,"journal":{"name":"Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2023.10","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The principle of self-determination has gained significant judicial support over the last three decades, and the choice to procreate using assisted reproductive technology is a clear example of our right to choose a treatment that enhances our personal lives. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as amended in 2008) stipulates that each party must give written, informed consent to ensure that our reproductive materials are used within strict parameters. However, the growing number of posthumous conception cases in several jurisdictions has raised concerns, particularly in situations where gametes are extracted from incapacitous patients without their consent, leading to posthumous parenthood. The landmark case of Y v A Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWCOP 18 caused significant concern when it authorised the retrieval, storage and use of sperm from a suspected brain stem dead man for procreative purposes under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It has never been known to be in the ‘best interests’ of a patient who lacks capacity to procreate in English law, and the consequences of this decision could be highly significant, raising questions about the exploitation of incapacitous patients and the misuse of genetic material. The decision has since been confirmed as the correct approach by the Court of Protection in Re X (Catastrophic Injury: Collection and Storage of Sperm) [2022] EWCOP 48, and a public consultation has now been opened by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. This paper examines the rigorous consent regime of the 1990 Act and the ethical complexities of retrieving gametes from incapacitous patients for procreative purposes. It will be determined that the 1990 Act's preference for a rigorous consent regime for public policy reasons is appropriate, and any alternative forms of consent could open a slippery slope to the unethical use of vulnerable individuals for their reproductive materials.
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
无行为能力的病人,辅助生殖技术,以及知情同意的重要性
自决原则在过去三十年中获得了重要的司法支持,选择使用辅助生殖技术生育是我们有权选择一种改善我们个人生活的治疗方法的一个明显例子。《1990年人类受精与胚胎法》(2008年修订)规定,每一方都必须给予书面的知情同意,以确保我们的生殖材料在严格的参数范围内使用。然而,在一些司法管辖区,越来越多的死后受孕案例引起了人们的关注,特别是在未经其同意从无行为能力的患者身上提取配子的情况下,导致了死后生育。具有里程碑意义的Y v A医疗保健NHS信托案件[2018]EWCOP 18引起了极大的关注,因为它授权根据《2005年精神能力法》从一名疑似脑干死亡男子的精子中提取、储存和使用精子用于生殖目的。在英国法律中,从来没有人知道这符合缺乏生育能力的病人的“最佳利益”,这一决定的后果可能非常重要,提出了对无能力病人的剥削和滥用遗传物质的问题。这一决定已经被保护法院在Re X(灾难性伤害:精子的收集和储存)[2022]EWCOP 48中确认为正确的方法,现在人类受精和胚胎学管理局已经开放了公众咨询。本文考察了1990年法案的严格同意制度,以及从无行为能力的患者中提取配子用于生育目的的伦理复杂性。将确定1990年法案出于公共政策原因对严格的同意制度的偏好是适当的,任何其他形式的同意都可能导致不道德地使用脆弱个体的生殖材料。
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Conspiracy! Or, when bad things happen to good litigants in person European human rights law and the legality of sex offence prosecutions based on deception as to gender history Deportation and human rights: the right to respect for private life in MK (Albania) v Minister for Justice and Equality Imprisonment for breach of injunctions: what is happening in the civil courts? Medical negligence and disclosure of alternative treatments
×
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