Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) potentially lower costs associated with prescription drugs through increased bargaining power with manufacturers. PBMs engage in selective contracting with pharmacies which has the potential to reduce retail competition, leading to increased prices. Proponents of "Any Willing Provider (AWP)" and "Freedom of Choice (FOC)" laws limiting this selective contracting claim increased retail competition will lower prescription drug spending. Examining the passage of such laws over the period 1991–2009, we find that AWP laws increase spending on prescription drugs by ~5% beyond any pre-existing trends in spending while FOC laws have no significant effect.
{"title":"The Effect of Any Willing Provider and Freedom of Choice Laws on Prescription Drug Expenditures","authors":"Jonathan Klick, Joshua D. Wright","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2183279","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2183279","url":null,"abstract":"Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) potentially lower costs associated with prescription drugs through increased bargaining power with manufacturers. PBMs engage in selective contracting with pharmacies which has the potential to reduce retail competition, leading to increased prices. Proponents of \"Any Willing Provider (AWP)\" and \"Freedom of Choice (FOC)\" laws limiting this selective contracting claim increased retail competition will lower prescription drug spending. Examining the passage of such laws over the period 1991–2009, we find that AWP laws increase spending on prescription drugs by ~5% beyond any pre-existing trends in spending while FOC laws have no significant effect.","PeriodicalId":410798,"journal":{"name":"Medical-Legal Studies eJournal","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133227779","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To protect vulnerable patients, hospitals increasingly adopt policies requiring health care workers to be vaccinated against influenza. More than twenty states have also enacted statutes or regulations on the topic. A small minority of health care workers oppose the requirement, and several have appealed to our courts of justice. This article examines the legal issues surrounding influenza mandates for health care workers, including the constitutional framework, federal employment discrimination statutes, and the effect of collective bargaining. It argues that requiring vaccination for health care workers is both ethical and appropriate. While better done via state statute, hospitals have the authority to require vaccination from their workers -- and are not, arguably, required to exempt any workers that do not have medical barriers to vaccination.
{"title":"First Do No Harm: Protecting Patients Through Immunizing Health Care Workers","authors":"Rene Najera, Dorit R. Reiss","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2562091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2562091","url":null,"abstract":"To protect vulnerable patients, hospitals increasingly adopt policies requiring health care workers to be vaccinated against influenza. More than twenty states have also enacted statutes or regulations on the topic. A small minority of health care workers oppose the requirement, and several have appealed to our courts of justice. This article examines the legal issues surrounding influenza mandates for health care workers, including the constitutional framework, federal employment discrimination statutes, and the effect of collective bargaining. It argues that requiring vaccination for health care workers is both ethical and appropriate. While better done via state statute, hospitals have the authority to require vaccination from their workers -- and are not, arguably, required to exempt any workers that do not have medical barriers to vaccination.","PeriodicalId":410798,"journal":{"name":"Medical-Legal Studies eJournal","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129601391","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As state governments respond to the needs of their aging populations, an issue of particular concern is health care at the end of life. With the many advances in public health and medical treatment — as well as in education, wealth, and other socioeconomic metrics — Americans are living much longer lives. But many Americans also face prolonged illness at the end of life that can result in great suffering. Often the suffering can be relieved with good palliative care, but for some Americans continued life becomes intolerable.As a result, there has been increased interest in a right for terminally ill individuals to hasten the dying process by taking a lethal dose of prescription medication (i.e., by “physician aid in dying,” commonly described as “physician-assisted suicide”). The existence of such a right has been litigated in the U. S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts, debated in state legislatures, and addressed in ballot proposals at the state level. Voters in Oregon and Washington have legalized aid in dying by public referendum, legislators in Vermont have done so by statutory enactment, and justices in Montana and a trial court in New Mexico have done so by court holding.In this Article, I discuss the trend toward legalization of physician aid in dying and what it tells us about societal morality regarding medical decisions at the end of life — while legal recognition of a right to aid in dying is growing, its greater recognition does not reflect a change in societal views about the propriety of physician-assisted suicide. We are not seeing an evolution in ethical thought. Rather, society is refining its legal rules for end-of-life law so they better reflect the public’s long-standing moral views about death-hastening choices at the end of life.
{"title":"Aging Populations and Physician Aid in Dying: The Evolution of State Government Policy","authors":"D. Orentlicher","doi":"10.18060/18390","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18060/18390","url":null,"abstract":"As state governments respond to the needs of their aging populations, an issue of particular concern is health care at the end of life. With the many advances in public health and medical treatment — as well as in education, wealth, and other socioeconomic metrics — Americans are living much longer lives. But many Americans also face prolonged illness at the end of life that can result in great suffering. Often the suffering can be relieved with good palliative care, but for some Americans continued life becomes intolerable.As a result, there has been increased interest in a right for terminally ill individuals to hasten the dying process by taking a lethal dose of prescription medication (i.e., by “physician aid in dying,” commonly described as “physician-assisted suicide”). The existence of such a right has been litigated in the U. S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts, debated in state legislatures, and addressed in ballot proposals at the state level. Voters in Oregon and Washington have legalized aid in dying by public referendum, legislators in Vermont have done so by statutory enactment, and justices in Montana and a trial court in New Mexico have done so by court holding.In this Article, I discuss the trend toward legalization of physician aid in dying and what it tells us about societal morality regarding medical decisions at the end of life — while legal recognition of a right to aid in dying is growing, its greater recognition does not reflect a change in societal views about the propriety of physician-assisted suicide. We are not seeing an evolution in ethical thought. Rather, society is refining its legal rules for end-of-life law so they better reflect the public’s long-standing moral views about death-hastening choices at the end of life.","PeriodicalId":410798,"journal":{"name":"Medical-Legal Studies eJournal","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130161218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We assess the potential for medical liability forces to deter medical errors and improve health care treatment quality, identifying liability's influence by drawing on variations in the manner by which states formulate the negligence standard facing physicians. Using hospital discharge records from the National Hospital Discharge Survey and clinically-validated quality metrics inspired by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, we find evidence suggesting that treatment quality may improve upon reforms that expect physicians to adhere to higher quality clinical standards. We do not find evidence, however, suggesting that treatment quality may deteriorate following reforms to liability standards that arguably condone the delivery of lower quality care. Similarly, we do not find evidence of deterioration in health care quality following remedy-focused liability reforms such as caps on non-economic damages awards.
{"title":"Does Medical Malpractice Law Improve Health Care Quality?","authors":"Michael D. Frakes, A. Jena","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2374599","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2374599","url":null,"abstract":"We assess the potential for medical liability forces to deter medical errors and improve health care treatment quality, identifying liability's influence by drawing on variations in the manner by which states formulate the negligence standard facing physicians. Using hospital discharge records from the National Hospital Discharge Survey and clinically-validated quality metrics inspired by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, we find evidence suggesting that treatment quality may improve upon reforms that expect physicians to adhere to higher quality clinical standards. We do not find evidence, however, suggesting that treatment quality may deteriorate following reforms to liability standards that arguably condone the delivery of lower quality care. Similarly, we do not find evidence of deterioration in health care quality following remedy-focused liability reforms such as caps on non-economic damages awards.","PeriodicalId":410798,"journal":{"name":"Medical-Legal Studies eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129413482","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is an online appendix to Lacetera, N., Macis, M., and Stith, S., 2013: “Removing Financial Barriers to Organ and Bone Marrow Donation: The Effect of Leave and Tax Legislation in the U.S.“ Journal of Health Economics, Forthcoming.The paper "Removing Financial Barriers to Organ and Bone Marrow Donation: The Effect of Leave and Tax Legislation in the U.S" to which these Appendices apply is available at the following URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2157956
{"title":"Removing Financial Barriers to Organ and Bone Marrow Donation: The Effect of Leave and Tax Legislation in the U.S. - Online Appendix","authors":"N. Lacetera, Mario Macis, Sarah S. Stith","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2337645","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2337645","url":null,"abstract":"This is an online appendix to Lacetera, N., Macis, M., and Stith, S., 2013: “Removing Financial Barriers to Organ and Bone Marrow Donation: The Effect of Leave and Tax Legislation in the U.S.“ Journal of Health Economics, Forthcoming.The paper \"Removing Financial Barriers to Organ and Bone Marrow Donation: The Effect of Leave and Tax Legislation in the U.S\" to which these Appendices apply is available at the following URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2157956","PeriodicalId":410798,"journal":{"name":"Medical-Legal Studies eJournal","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123775974","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Authors describe and analyze the protection of genetic data in the field of biomedical research and the forensic use of genetic data in Lithuania.
作者描述和分析了立陶宛生物医学研究领域对遗传数据的保护和遗传数据的法医使用。
{"title":"The Legal Regulation of Biobanks - National Report: Lithuania","authors":"J. Sandor, E. Demény, Petra Bárd","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2295956","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2295956","url":null,"abstract":"Authors describe and analyze the protection of genetic data in the field of biomedical research and the forensic use of genetic data in Lithuania.","PeriodicalId":410798,"journal":{"name":"Medical-Legal Studies eJournal","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133177121","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper discusses a recent health law issue originating from British Columbia, Canada. In Hobbs v. Robertson, the health law issue in question is whether a waiver that bars physician liability for negligence is valid. This is an important question because any answer will have a significant effect on both health law and the patient-physician relationship dynamic. At present, there is no judgment on this case and the British Columbia Court of Appeals has, for the second time, remitted that action back to trial court. This inquiry addresses aspects of tort and contract law in the patient-physician relationship. To address this health law issue, three critical questions are analyzed. The first question is if a waiver can be valid between a patient and physician. The second is whether a waiver is valid only between a patient and a hospital or also with the physician. The final question asks if negligence may be included in a waiver. After analysis, three potential solutions are suggested and discussed with one being chosen as the most suitable for implementing.
{"title":"Waivers and Negligence: Defining the Patient-Physician Relationship by Refusal of Blood Transfusions","authors":"P. Ciechanowski","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2314076","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2314076","url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses a recent health law issue originating from British Columbia, Canada. In Hobbs v. Robertson, the health law issue in question is whether a waiver that bars physician liability for negligence is valid. This is an important question because any answer will have a significant effect on both health law and the patient-physician relationship dynamic. At present, there is no judgment on this case and the British Columbia Court of Appeals has, for the second time, remitted that action back to trial court. This inquiry addresses aspects of tort and contract law in the patient-physician relationship. To address this health law issue, three critical questions are analyzed. The first question is if a waiver can be valid between a patient and physician. The second is whether a waiver is valid only between a patient and a hospital or also with the physician. The final question asks if negligence may be included in a waiver. After analysis, three potential solutions are suggested and discussed with one being chosen as the most suitable for implementing.","PeriodicalId":410798,"journal":{"name":"Medical-Legal Studies eJournal","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115261723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In a severe influenza pandemic, many more patients would require the use of mechanical ventilators than can be accommodated with current supplies. In order to proactively confront the rationing of resources in preparation for the possibility of severe ventilator scarcity, in 2007, the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law and the New York State Department of Health released a draft guidance document entitled Allocation of Ventilators in an Influenza Pandemic, laying out a comprehensive clinical and ethical framework to guide distribution of ventilators in the event of a severe public health emergency using objective medical criteria, with the ultimate goal of saving the most lives. However, adhering to the Guidelines – despite the significant public health goals contained therein – may expose health care providers and entities to considerable costs and burdens, including the risk of jail time and/or financial penalties, the time and costs of discovery and preparing a case, higher medical malpractice insurance rates, and damage to one’s reputation, unless proper and adequate legal protections are in place. This article addresses the issue of liability for health care workers and entities who adhere to the recommended clinical protocol contained in the Ventilator Guidelines while rendering care in a disaster emergency. We consider the “trigger” for implementing emergency plans – a declaration of a public health or disaster emergency, explore current federal and State law that might offer immunity, defense, or indemnification to certain individuals or entities who provide care in response to that declaration, and offer several unique alternative approaches to mitigate clinicians’ and other entities’ burdens in the event of a lawsuit. The article culminates in recommendations for legislation granting adequate civil and criminal liability protections to health care workers and entities who adhere to the State’s Ventilator Guidelines in a pandemic.
{"title":"Unique Proposals for Limiting Legal Liability and Encouraging Adherence to Ventilator Allocation Guidelines in an Influenza Pandemic","authors":"V. Koch, Beth E. Roxland","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2174511","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2174511","url":null,"abstract":"In a severe influenza pandemic, many more patients would require the use of mechanical ventilators than can be accommodated with current supplies. In order to proactively confront the rationing of resources in preparation for the possibility of severe ventilator scarcity, in 2007, the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law and the New York State Department of Health released a draft guidance document entitled Allocation of Ventilators in an Influenza Pandemic, laying out a comprehensive clinical and ethical framework to guide distribution of ventilators in the event of a severe public health emergency using objective medical criteria, with the ultimate goal of saving the most lives. However, adhering to the Guidelines – despite the significant public health goals contained therein – may expose health care providers and entities to considerable costs and burdens, including the risk of jail time and/or financial penalties, the time and costs of discovery and preparing a case, higher medical malpractice insurance rates, and damage to one’s reputation, unless proper and adequate legal protections are in place. This article addresses the issue of liability for health care workers and entities who adhere to the recommended clinical protocol contained in the Ventilator Guidelines while rendering care in a disaster emergency. We consider the “trigger” for implementing emergency plans – a declaration of a public health or disaster emergency, explore current federal and State law that might offer immunity, defense, or indemnification to certain individuals or entities who provide care in response to that declaration, and offer several unique alternative approaches to mitigate clinicians’ and other entities’ burdens in the event of a lawsuit. The article culminates in recommendations for legislation granting adequate civil and criminal liability protections to health care workers and entities who adhere to the State’s Ventilator Guidelines in a pandemic.","PeriodicalId":410798,"journal":{"name":"Medical-Legal Studies eJournal","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124306622","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Technological advancements in the life sciences are continually pressing forward despite frequent and vocal resistance. Examples of such advancements include reproductive technologies, genetics, stem cell research, nanotechnology, and now synthetic biology. In May 2010, the J. Craig Venter Institute, a multidisciplinary scientific organization led by one of the first scientists to sequence the human genome, announced in the journal Science the creation of the first synthetic cell — a man-made, single-celled organism with the ability to self-replicate. While hailed as a monumental step forward for science, the response from opponents was swift: stop the science from going forward, keep the products off the market, and protect society from the inherent and unknown risks. Recognizing that there are measurable and important differences among advancements in the life sciences in terms of the touchstone risk-benefit dichotomy, this article will examine some promising synthetic biology developments in the medical realm in order to assess the application and performance of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory framework. It concludes that the FDA is well equipped to assess and implement protections for products that fit into the traditional clinical trial, review and approval, and post-market regime. However, unlike other developments in the life sciences, synthetic biology poses potential environmental problems not previously contemplated by the limited life-cycle inquiry undertaken by the FDA, suggesting that it may be necessary to reassess the regulation of medical products using synthetic biology techniques.
{"title":"Synthetic Biology: Does Re-Writing Nature Require Re-Writing Regulation?","authors":"J. Paradise, E. Fitzpatrick","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1975054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1975054","url":null,"abstract":"Technological advancements in the life sciences are continually pressing forward despite frequent and vocal resistance. Examples of such advancements include reproductive technologies, genetics, stem cell research, nanotechnology, and now synthetic biology. In May 2010, the J. Craig Venter Institute, a multidisciplinary scientific organization led by one of the first scientists to sequence the human genome, announced in the journal Science the creation of the first synthetic cell — a man-made, single-celled organism with the ability to self-replicate. While hailed as a monumental step forward for science, the response from opponents was swift: stop the science from going forward, keep the products off the market, and protect society from the inherent and unknown risks. Recognizing that there are measurable and important differences among advancements in the life sciences in terms of the touchstone risk-benefit dichotomy, this article will examine some promising synthetic biology developments in the medical realm in order to assess the application and performance of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory framework. It concludes that the FDA is well equipped to assess and implement protections for products that fit into the traditional clinical trial, review and approval, and post-market regime. However, unlike other developments in the life sciences, synthetic biology poses potential environmental problems not previously contemplated by the limited life-cycle inquiry undertaken by the FDA, suggesting that it may be necessary to reassess the regulation of medical products using synthetic biology techniques.","PeriodicalId":410798,"journal":{"name":"Medical-Legal Studies eJournal","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126815706","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article investigates the impact of legislating respect and dignity for the embryo in vitro on the legal and cultural status of the embryo in utero. It evaluates the restrictions on embryo research in Canada’s Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHRA) to consider whether they should receive pro-choice feminist support. Specifically, the article explores whether it is possible for feminists to accord respect to the in vitro embryo, as the AHRA attempts to do, without jeopardizing support for abortion. The article canvasses the theoretical possibilities of this position by comparing the compatibility of feminist articulations of a right to abortion (bodily integrity and equality) with feminist arguments against the expansive use of embryos in research (commodification and exploitation). The article argues that it is logically compatible for feminists to promote “respect” and “dignity” for in vitro embryos while maintaining a pro-choice position on abortion. The article nevertheless cautions against feminist support for AHRA as it currently stands given that, on a practical basis, a feminist understanding of the AHRA’s restricted embryo research regime is difficult to achieve in the public sphere. The article explains why the more likely result for the public sphere will be an unqualified discourse of respect and dignity for embryos in general, which could then problematically revive the abortion debate and destabilize the non-personhood status of the in utero embryo. As a remedy, the article provides recommendations for how AHRA should be amended so as to better ensure that legislative restrictions on embryo research signal a legislative intent that respects women’s reproductive autonomy.
{"title":"Legislating Respect: A Pro-Choice Feminist Analysis of Embryo Research Restrictions in Canada","authors":"Maneesha Deckha","doi":"10.7202/1013389AR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1013389AR","url":null,"abstract":"This article investigates the impact of legislating respect and dignity for the embryo in vitro on the legal and cultural status of the embryo in utero. It evaluates the restrictions on embryo research in Canada’s Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHRA) to consider whether they should receive pro-choice feminist support. Specifically, the article explores whether it is possible for feminists to accord respect to the in vitro embryo, as the AHRA attempts to do, without jeopardizing support for abortion. The article canvasses the theoretical possibilities of this position by comparing the compatibility of feminist articulations of a right to abortion (bodily integrity and equality) with feminist arguments against the expansive use of embryos in research (commodification and exploitation). The article argues that it is logically compatible for feminists to promote “respect” and “dignity” for in vitro embryos while maintaining a pro-choice position on abortion. The article nevertheless cautions against feminist support for AHRA as it currently stands given that, on a practical basis, a feminist understanding of the AHRA’s restricted embryo research regime is difficult to achieve in the public sphere. The article explains why the more likely result for the public sphere will be an unqualified discourse of respect and dignity for embryos in general, which could then problematically revive the abortion debate and destabilize the non-personhood status of the in utero embryo. As a remedy, the article provides recommendations for how AHRA should be amended so as to better ensure that legislative restrictions on embryo research signal a legislative intent that respects women’s reproductive autonomy.","PeriodicalId":410798,"journal":{"name":"Medical-Legal Studies eJournal","volume":"62 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120922266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：