Desperately seeking donors: the 'saviour sibling' decision in Quintavalle v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (UK).

Australian journal of family law Pub Date : 2005-08-01
Barbara Ann Hocking, Scott Guy
{"title":"Desperately seeking donors: the 'saviour sibling' decision in Quintavalle v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (UK).","authors":"Barbara Ann Hocking,&nbsp;Scott Guy","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The recent House of Lords decision in Quintavalle v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has raised difficult and complex issues regarding the extent to which embryo selection and reproductive technology can be used as a means of rectifying genetic disorders and treating critically ill children. This comment outlines the facts of Quintavalle and explores how the House of Lords approached the legal, ethical and policy issues that arose out of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's (UK) decision to allow reproductive and embryo technology to be used to produce a 'saviour sibling' whose tissue could be used to save the life of a critically ill child. Particular attention will be given to the implications of the decision in Quintavalle for Australian family and medical law and policy. As part of this focus, the comment explores the current Australian legislative and policy framework regarding the use of genetic and reproductive technology as a mechanism through which to assist critically ill siblings. It is argued that the present Australian framework would appear to impose significant limits on the medical uses of genetic technology and, in this context, would seem to reflect many of the principles that were articulated by the House of Lords in Quintavalle.</p>","PeriodicalId":80605,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of family law","volume":"19 2","pages":"144-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian journal of family law","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

Abstract

The recent House of Lords decision in Quintavalle v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has raised difficult and complex issues regarding the extent to which embryo selection and reproductive technology can be used as a means of rectifying genetic disorders and treating critically ill children. This comment outlines the facts of Quintavalle and explores how the House of Lords approached the legal, ethical and policy issues that arose out of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's (UK) decision to allow reproductive and embryo technology to be used to produce a 'saviour sibling' whose tissue could be used to save the life of a critically ill child. Particular attention will be given to the implications of the decision in Quintavalle for Australian family and medical law and policy. As part of this focus, the comment explores the current Australian legislative and policy framework regarding the use of genetic and reproductive technology as a mechanism through which to assist critically ill siblings. It is argued that the present Australian framework would appear to impose significant limits on the medical uses of genetic technology and, in this context, would seem to reflect many of the principles that were articulated by the House of Lords in Quintavalle.

拼命寻找捐赠者:昆塔瓦莱诉人类受精和胚胎学管理局(英国)案中“拯救兄弟”的决定。
最近,英国上议院在昆塔瓦莱诉人类受精和胚胎学管理局(Quintavalle v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority)一案中做出的决定,提出了一些困难而复杂的问题,即胚胎选择和生殖技术可以在多大程度上被用作纠正遗传疾病和治疗危重儿童的手段。这篇评论概述了昆塔瓦莱的事实,并探讨了上议院如何处理法律、伦理和政策问题,这些问题是由人类受精和胚胎学管理局(英国)的决定引起的,该决定允许使用生殖和胚胎技术来生产“救世主兄弟”,其组织可用于挽救危重儿童的生命。将特别注意昆塔瓦莱案的决定对澳大利亚家庭和医疗法律和政策的影响。作为这一重点的一部分,评论探讨了澳大利亚目前关于利用遗传和生殖技术作为一种帮助病重兄弟姐妹的机制的立法和政策框架。有人认为,澳大利亚目前的框架似乎对遗传技术的医疗用途施加了重大限制,在这方面,似乎反映了上议院在昆塔瓦莱阐明的许多原则。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信