昆塔瓦莱:生命伦理学的困境。

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2016-01-01
Lisa Cherkassky
{"title":"昆塔瓦莱:生命伦理学的困境。","authors":"Lisa Cherkassky","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The case of <i>R. (Quintavalle) v. Human Fertilisation Embryology Authority (and Secretary of State for Health)</i> presents a handful of legal problems. The biggest legal query to arise from the case is the inevitable harvest of babies, toddlers and very young children for their bone marrow. This article unpacks the judicial story behind <i>Quintavalle</i> to reveal how the strict provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990--namely 'suitable condition' under schedule 2 paragraph 1(1)(a) and 'treatment services' and 'assisting' under section 2(1)--were widely misinterpreted to introduce the social selection of embryos into law. The legal loopholes created by the judgment (embryo wastage, welfare, eugenics and the legality of child harvest in particular) are also identified. It will be concluded that screening for a tissue match is social selection despite arguments to the contrary and that parents are not yet entitled in law to harvest a very young child for bone marrow, making the creation of a saviour sibling under the 1990 Act as a result of <i>Quintavalle</i> ultimately futile.</p>","PeriodicalId":73804,"journal":{"name":"Journal of law and health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quintavalle: The Quandary in Bioethics.\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Cherkassky\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The case of <i>R. (Quintavalle) v. Human Fertilisation Embryology Authority (and Secretary of State for Health)</i> presents a handful of legal problems. The biggest legal query to arise from the case is the inevitable harvest of babies, toddlers and very young children for their bone marrow. This article unpacks the judicial story behind <i>Quintavalle</i> to reveal how the strict provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990--namely 'suitable condition' under schedule 2 paragraph 1(1)(a) and 'treatment services' and 'assisting' under section 2(1)--were widely misinterpreted to introduce the social selection of embryos into law. The legal loopholes created by the judgment (embryo wastage, welfare, eugenics and the legality of child harvest in particular) are also identified. It will be concluded that screening for a tissue match is social selection despite arguments to the contrary and that parents are not yet entitled in law to harvest a very young child for bone marrow, making the creation of a saviour sibling under the 1990 Act as a result of <i>Quintavalle</i> ultimately futile.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73804,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of law and health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of law and health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of law and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

昆塔瓦莱诉人类受精胚胎学管理局(和卫生大臣)一案提出了一些法律问题。该案引发的最大法律质疑是,婴儿、幼儿和非常年幼的儿童不可避免地会被采集骨髓。本文揭示了昆塔瓦莱背后的司法故事,揭示了1990年《人类受精和胚胎法》的严格规定——即附表2第1(1)(a)段中的“适当条件”和第2(1)节中的“治疗服务”和“协助”——是如何被广泛误解为将胚胎的社会选择引入法律的。还指出了该判决造成的法律漏洞(特别是胚胎浪费、福利、优生学和摘取儿童的合法性)。尽管有相反的观点,但最终的结论是,筛选组织匹配是一种社会选择,父母在法律上还没有权利从很小的孩子身上采集骨髓,这使得根据1990年的法案,由于昆塔瓦莱的结果,创造一个救世主的兄弟姐妹最终是徒劳的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Quintavalle: The Quandary in Bioethics.

The case of R. (Quintavalle) v. Human Fertilisation Embryology Authority (and Secretary of State for Health) presents a handful of legal problems. The biggest legal query to arise from the case is the inevitable harvest of babies, toddlers and very young children for their bone marrow. This article unpacks the judicial story behind Quintavalle to reveal how the strict provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990--namely 'suitable condition' under schedule 2 paragraph 1(1)(a) and 'treatment services' and 'assisting' under section 2(1)--were widely misinterpreted to introduce the social selection of embryos into law. The legal loopholes created by the judgment (embryo wastage, welfare, eugenics and the legality of child harvest in particular) are also identified. It will be concluded that screening for a tissue match is social selection despite arguments to the contrary and that parents are not yet entitled in law to harvest a very young child for bone marrow, making the creation of a saviour sibling under the 1990 Act as a result of Quintavalle ultimately futile.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Ninth Amendment: An Underutilized Protection for Reproductive Choice. Distorted Burden Shifting and Barred Mitigation: Being a Stubborn 234 Years Old Ironically Hasn't Helped the Supreme Court Mature. How Bodily Autonomy Can Fail Against Vaccination Mandates: The Few vs. the Many. When Governors Prioritize Individual Freedom over Public Health: Tort Liability for Government Failures. Without Due Process of Law: The Dobbs Decision and Its Cataclysmic Impact on the Substantive Due Process and Privacy Rights of Ohio Women.
×
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