Donor conception, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, choices, and procedural justice: an argument for reform of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q1 LAW
Caroline A B Redhead, Lucy Frith
{"title":"Donor conception, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, choices, and procedural justice: an argument for reform of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.","authors":"Caroline A B Redhead, Lucy Frith","doi":"10.1093/medlaw/fwae028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, using theories of procedural justice and 'slow violence', we consider potential reform of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Our theoretical discussion is underpinned by findings from the ConnecteDNA project, exploring how people affected by donor conception experience direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT). The negative impacts of DTCGT, especially shock discoveries about the circumstances of someone's conception in adulthood, are linked to donor anonymity, and how its continued protection is experienced as a barrier to the rights and agency of donor-conceived people. We focus on two key issues relating to the donor information access process set out in section 31ZA of the 1990 Act. The first is that it excludes certain cohorts of donor-conceived people, creating inequalities of access to donor information. The second is the impact of the use of DTCGT to search for that information. We discuss what a procedurally just process of law reform would look like, concluding that, whatever (prospective) approach to donor anonymity is taken, the donor information access process should be the same for all donor-conceived people. We thus argue that, even were the status quo to be maintained, reform of the donor information access process with retrospective effect would be required.</p>","PeriodicalId":49146,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law Review","volume":" ","pages":"505-529"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwae028","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, using theories of procedural justice and 'slow violence', we consider potential reform of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Our theoretical discussion is underpinned by findings from the ConnecteDNA project, exploring how people affected by donor conception experience direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT). The negative impacts of DTCGT, especially shock discoveries about the circumstances of someone's conception in adulthood, are linked to donor anonymity, and how its continued protection is experienced as a barrier to the rights and agency of donor-conceived people. We focus on two key issues relating to the donor information access process set out in section 31ZA of the 1990 Act. The first is that it excludes certain cohorts of donor-conceived people, creating inequalities of access to donor information. The second is the impact of the use of DTCGT to search for that information. We discuss what a procedurally just process of law reform would look like, concluding that, whatever (prospective) approach to donor anonymity is taken, the donor information access process should be the same for all donor-conceived people. We thus argue that, even were the status quo to be maintained, reform of the donor information access process with retrospective effect would be required.

捐献受孕、直接面向消费者的基因检测、选择和程序正义:改革《1990 年人类受精和胚胎学法案》的论据。
在这篇文章中,我们运用程序正义和 "缓慢暴力 "理论,对《1990 年人类受精与胚胎学法案》的潜在改革进行了思考。我们的理论讨论以 ConnecteDNA 项目的研究结果为基础,该项目探讨了受捐献受孕影响的人如何体验直接面向消费者的基因检测(DTCGT)。DTCGT 的负面影响,尤其是对某人成年后受孕情况的惊人发现,与捐献者匿名性有关,也与持续保护捐献者匿名性如何被视为捐献受孕者权利和代理权的障碍有关。我们重点关注与 1990 年法案第 31ZA 条规定的捐献者信息获取程序有关的两个关键问题。第一个问题是它将某些捐赠受孕者排除在外,造成了获取捐赠者信息的不平等。其次是使用 DTCGT 搜索该信息的影响。我们讨论了程序上公正的法律改革过程应该是什么样的,得出的结论是,无论对捐献者匿名问题采取何种(预期的)方法,对所有捐献者受孕者来说,获取捐献者信息的过程应该是相同的。因此,我们认为,即使维持现状,也需要对捐赠者信息获取程序进行具有追溯效力的改革。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Law Review
Medical Law Review MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
11.80%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Law Review is established as an authoritative source of reference for academics, lawyers, legal and medical practitioners, law students, and anyone interested in healthcare and the law. The journal presents articles of international interest which provide thorough analyses and comment on the wide range of topical issues that are fundamental to this expanding area of law. In addition, commentary sections provide in depth explorations of topical aspects of the field.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信