Journal of Law and the Biosciences最新文献

In recent years, we have witnessed considerable progress in neurotechnologies that visualize or alter a person's brain and mental features. In the near future, some of these technologies could possibly be used to change neural parameters of high-risk behavior in criminal offenders, often referred to as neurointerventions. The idea of delivering neurointerventions to criminal justice populations has raised fundamental normative concerns, but some authors have argued that offering neurointerventions to convicted offenders could be permissible. However, such offers raise normative concerns too. One prominent worry that is often emphasized in the literature, relates to the vulnerability of convicted offenders in prison and forensic patients in mental health facilities. In this paper, we aim to show that as far as vulnerability is considered relevant within the context of offering medical interventions to offenders, it could contribute to arguments against as well as in favor of these offers.

Philosophical discussions concerning ectogestation are trending. And given that the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), questions regarding the moral and legal status of abortion in light of the advent of ectogestation will likely continue to be of central importance in the coming years. If ectogestation can intersect with or even determine abortion policy in the future, then a new philosophical analysis of the legal status of abortion is both warranted and urgently needed. I argue that, even if there is no 'moral' right to fetal destruction once ectogestation becomes a reality, societies ought not to implement legal prohibitions on a pregnant person's ability to safely obtain an abortion that results in fetal death because such laws are systemically misogynistic.

This article explores whether the human right to science can support the public interest as a legal basis to use and disclose confidential information. The contextual focus is scientific research; the jurisdictional focus is England. The human right to science, as reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 27) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 15), hitherto has not been invoked in support of a public interest basis for lawful disclosure, but the argument is made herein that there may be scope to develop this jurisprudentially. On grounds of both law and policy, and in line with the underlying rationale of recent UK Government deployment of 'COPI Notices' for lawful use of confidential patient information in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, I contend that the human right to science may well serve as a valuable juridical buttress to an overriding public interest justification to lawfully share confidential information. However, this could occur only in restricted circumstances where the public interest is clearly manifest, namely studies researching serious, imminent health threats to the general population that rely on confidential information accessed outside of existing statutory gateways, and not more routine scientific endeavors.

Drugs are increasingly authorized based on less mature evidence, leaving payors faced with significant clinical and cost-effectiveness uncertainties. As a result, payors must often choose between reimbursing a drug that may not turn out to be cost-effective (or may even be unsafe) or delaying the reimbursement of a drug that is cost-effective and offers clinical benefit to patients. Novel reimbursement decision models and frameworks, such as managed access agreements (MAAs), may address this decision challenge. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of the legal limitations, considerations, and implications for adopting MAAs in Canadian jurisdictions. We begin with an overview of current drug reimbursement processes in Canada, terminology and definitions of the different types of MAAs, and select international experiences with MAAs. We discuss the legal barriers to MAA governance frameworks, design and implementation considerations, and legal and policy implications of MAAs. Finally, we provide recommendations to guide policy development for implementing MAAs in Canada, based on existing literature, international experience, and our legal analysis. We conclude that legal and policy barriers likely prevent the adoption of a pan-Canadian MAA governance framework. More feasible is a quasi-federal or provincial approach, building on existing infrastructure.

This article critiques the quest to state general rules to protect human rights against AI/ML computational tools. The White House Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights was a recent attempt that fails in ways this article explores. There are limits to how far ethicolegal analysis can go in abstracting AI/ML tools, as a category, from the specific contexts where AI tools are deployed. Health technology offers a good example of this principle. The salient dilemma with AI/ML medical software is that privacy policy has the potential to undermine distributional justice, forcing a choice between two competing visions of privacy protection. The first, stressing individual consent, won favor among bioethicists, information privacy theorists, and policymakers after 1970 but displays an ominous potential to bias AI training data in ways that promote health care inequities. The alternative, an older duty-based approach from medical privacy law aligns with a broader critique of how late-20th-century American law and ethics endorsed atomistic autonomy as the highest moral good, neglecting principles of caring, social interdependency, justice, and equity. Disregarding the context of such choices can produce suboptimal policies when - as in medicine and many other contexts - the use of personal data has high social value.

The demise of Roe v. Wade has prompted some state lawmakers to try to redefine legal personhood to begin before birth and even before pregnancy. The sweeping abortion bans passed and pending in the wake of Dobbs pose a threat to reproductive rights that extends beyond abortion. That threat spills over into in vitro fertilization (IVF) and other assisted reproductive technologies (ART). If legislatures designate embryos as legal persons, fertility clinics will be forced to change how they manage embryos, including current standard practices such as pre-implantation genetic testing, storage of unused embryos, and the disposal of those unlikely to have reproductive potential. This essay examines the many ways in which conferring the status of persons under private and public law is likely to impact patients pursuing IVF and clinics practicing ART.

In Box v Planned Parenthood, Justice Thomas wrote an impassioned concurrence describing abortions based on sex, disability or race as a form of 'modern-day eugenics'. He defended the challenged Indiana reason-based abortion (RBA) ban as a necessary antidote to these practices. Inspired by this concurrence, legislatures have increasingly enacted similar bills and statutes allegedly as a prophylactic to 'eugenics', its underlying discrimination, and the racial disparities eugenics caused. This article tests my hypothesis that this legislative focus on eugenics is largely performative, rather than evidence of true concern about the discrimination and disparities underlying eugenics. My research examined state laws in several areas that fall within narrow and broad understandings of eugenics to determine whether states with RBA bans have implemented policies to counteract eugenics more broadly. My analysis shows that they generally have not. Instead, the apparent motivation is to commandeer concerns about eugenics to restrict reproductive rights. This legislative mission is hypocritical, and it harms the very groups impacted by the eugenics movements-minorities, women, people with disabilities, the LGBTQ+ community, and immigrants. Ultimately, it has led us to Dobbs, which makes everyone vulnerable to the eugenics policies Thomas condemns by undercutting previous constitutional protections against eugenics.

Despite the non-recognition of same-sex relationships or marriage by the law, lesbian motherhood has become an emerging socio-legal issue in China. To fulfil their desires to reproduce and make a family, some Chinese lesbian couples adopt a `shared motherhood model' where one lesbian contributes an egg while her partner becomes pregnant through embryo transfer following artificial insemination with a donor's sperm. Because the shared motherhood model intentionally divides the roles of biological mother and gestational mother between lesbian couples, this has allowed legal controversies to emerge associated with the parenthood of the conceived child as well as custody, support of, and visitation of the child. There are two pending judicial cases involving a shared motherhood arrangement reported in the country. The courts have appeared reluctant to rule on them because Chinese law has not provided clear legal solutions to these controversial issues. They are highly cautious about delivering a decision not in line with the current legal position of non-recognition of same-sex marriage. Given little literature discussing Chinese legal responses to the shared motherhood model, this article aims to fill the gap by investigating the basis of parenthood under Chinese law and analysing the parentage issue concerning the different types of relationships between lesbians and children born of a shared motherhood arrangement.

The HeLa cell line was created in 1951 without consent from Henrietta Lacks, the person whose tissue sample was used. In 2021, the descendants of Henrietta Lacks sued a well-known biotechnology company for the profits it made from the HeLa cell line. In this article, ownership of the cell lines is investigated from a South African legal perspective by considering three possible contemporary scenarios bearing points of similarity to the Henrietta Lacks case. In the first scenario, informed consent is obtained to use a tissue sample for research and to commercialize the products of such research; in the second scenario, informed consent is materially deficient because of an honest mistake on the part of the research institution; and in the third scenario, informed consent is materially deficient due to willful disregard of the law on the part of the research institution. In the first two scenarios, ownership of the cell line created from the tissue sample would vest in the research institution, and the research participant would not have any legal action for financial compensation. However, in the third scenario, ownership of the cell line would vest in the research participant, who would be able to claim all profits made from trading the cell line. Whether the research institution acted in good faith is therefore a crucial determinant of the legal outcome.