解构年龄:分析将年龄作为获得辅助生殖技术的法律标准的不同概念。

IF 2.5 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Law and the Biosciences Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1093/jlb/lsac036
Andrea Martani, Eva De Clercq, Christian De Geyter, Guido Pennings, Tenzin Wangmo, Bernice Simone Elger
{"title":"解构年龄:分析将年龄作为获得辅助生殖技术的法律标准的不同概念。","authors":"Andrea Martani,&nbsp;Eva De Clercq,&nbsp;Christian De Geyter,&nbsp;Guido Pennings,&nbsp;Tenzin Wangmo,&nbsp;Bernice Simone Elger","doi":"10.1093/jlb/lsac036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Whether there should be restrictions for access to Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) is a matter of continuous medical, societal, and ethico-legal debate. One of the most controversial topics in this context is the use of parental age as a criterion to limit access to ART. Views are divided on whether there should be an upper age limit for one or both parents and on where such limits should be. Although this debate is centered around the issue of 'age' and although <i>age</i>-related limits are present in many legislations, the intrinsic ambiguity of the term `age' is largely overlooked. In this article, we build on gerontological, medical, and sociological literature on the concepts of 'age' and 'aging' to distinguish three conceptions of age that are relevant for ART regulation: the chronological, the biological, and the social-cultural one. Beyond mapping out these conceptions of age, we describe how they relate to ART and reproduction, and illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of relying on each of them as a basis for limiting ART access. Finally, we propose a template for defining legal age limits for ART access in the law, based on the refined understanding of the different conceptions of age that we outline and we discuss two potential objections to our proposal.</p>","PeriodicalId":56266,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","volume":"9 2","pages":"lsac036"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9754082/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deconstructing age(s): an analysis of the different conceptions of age as a legal criterion for access to assisted reproductive technologies.\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Martani,&nbsp;Eva De Clercq,&nbsp;Christian De Geyter,&nbsp;Guido Pennings,&nbsp;Tenzin Wangmo,&nbsp;Bernice Simone Elger\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jlb/lsac036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Whether there should be restrictions for access to Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) is a matter of continuous medical, societal, and ethico-legal debate. One of the most controversial topics in this context is the use of parental age as a criterion to limit access to ART. Views are divided on whether there should be an upper age limit for one or both parents and on where such limits should be. Although this debate is centered around the issue of 'age' and although <i>age</i>-related limits are present in many legislations, the intrinsic ambiguity of the term `age' is largely overlooked. In this article, we build on gerontological, medical, and sociological literature on the concepts of 'age' and 'aging' to distinguish three conceptions of age that are relevant for ART regulation: the chronological, the biological, and the social-cultural one. Beyond mapping out these conceptions of age, we describe how they relate to ART and reproduction, and illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of relying on each of them as a basis for limiting ART access. Finally, we propose a template for defining legal age limits for ART access in the law, based on the refined understanding of the different conceptions of age that we outline and we discuss two potential objections to our proposal.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"volume\":\"9 2\",\"pages\":\"lsac036\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9754082/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsac036\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsac036","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

是否应该限制获得辅助生殖技术(ART)是一个持续的医学、社会和伦理法律辩论的问题。在这方面最具争议的话题之一是使用父母年龄作为限制获得抗逆转录病毒治疗的标准。对于父母一方或双方是否应该有年龄上限,以及年龄上限应该在哪里,人们的看法存在分歧。尽管这场辩论围绕着“年龄”问题展开,尽管许多立法中都存在与年龄相关的限制,但“年龄”一词内在的模糊性在很大程度上被忽视了。在本文中,我们以老年学、医学和社会学文献为基础,对“年龄”和“衰老”的概念进行了区分,以区分与ART调控相关的三个年龄概念:时间、生物和社会文化。除了绘制这些年龄概念之外,我们还描述了它们与ART和生殖的关系,并说明了依赖它们作为限制ART获取的基础的优点和缺点。最后,基于对我们所概述的不同年龄概念的精细化理解,我们提出了一个在法律中定义ART获取的法定年龄限制的模板,并讨论了对我们建议的两种潜在反对意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Deconstructing age(s): an analysis of the different conceptions of age as a legal criterion for access to assisted reproductive technologies.

Whether there should be restrictions for access to Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) is a matter of continuous medical, societal, and ethico-legal debate. One of the most controversial topics in this context is the use of parental age as a criterion to limit access to ART. Views are divided on whether there should be an upper age limit for one or both parents and on where such limits should be. Although this debate is centered around the issue of 'age' and although age-related limits are present in many legislations, the intrinsic ambiguity of the term `age' is largely overlooked. In this article, we build on gerontological, medical, and sociological literature on the concepts of 'age' and 'aging' to distinguish three conceptions of age that are relevant for ART regulation: the chronological, the biological, and the social-cultural one. Beyond mapping out these conceptions of age, we describe how they relate to ART and reproduction, and illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of relying on each of them as a basis for limiting ART access. Finally, we propose a template for defining legal age limits for ART access in the law, based on the refined understanding of the different conceptions of age that we outline and we discuss two potential objections to our proposal.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Law and the Biosciences
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
35
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Law and the Biosciences (JLB) is the first fully Open Access peer-reviewed legal journal focused on the advances at the intersection of law and the biosciences. A co-venture between Duke University, Harvard University Law School, and Stanford University, and published by Oxford University Press, this open access, online, and interdisciplinary academic journal publishes cutting-edge scholarship in this important new field. The Journal contains original and response articles, essays, and commentaries on a wide range of topics, including bioethics, neuroethics, genetics, reproductive technologies, stem cells, enhancement, patent law, and food and drug regulation. JLB is published as one volume with three issues per year with new articles posted online on an ongoing basis.
期刊最新文献
Accelerating biosimilar market access: the case for allowing earlier standing. Forensic genetics in the shadows. The law for mini-organ prototypes in a dish. Mapping the legal status options for organoids in Swiss law. Intellectual property issues for open science practices in genomic-related health research and innovation in Africa. Uterus transplants and Mexico's rule of law.
×
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