新生殖技术与遗传亲缘关系

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Rosamund Scott
{"title":"新生殖技术与遗传亲缘关系","authors":"Rosamund Scott","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12844","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At the heart of the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) is the attempt to realise a commonly anticipated future – the opportunity, if desired, to create and raise a genetically related child. For some, existing ARTs cannot assist, yet upcoming ones such as in vitro derived gametes (IVGs) may do so. However, the desire for genetically related children is frequently critiqued in debates about new ARTs. Since most heterosexual couples can have such children without assistance, and same‐sex couples are equally likely to desire them, this is highly problematic. This article presents the moral and legal case for the legalisation of IVGs, if and when judged sufficiently safe. It analyses development of the concept of ‘treatment’ in relevant UK law; argues that it is reasonable (that is, not unreasonable) to value the project of procreative parenting, thereby refuting the arguments that there is a moral duty to adopt, or that the alternatives of adoption or donor conception should suffice; explores legal recognition of the ordinary place of reproduction in social life; and considers the implications of the rights to private and family life and to non‐discrimination, particularly under the European Convention on Human Rights, highlighting the disabling nature of infertility.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":"22 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New Reproductive Technologies and Genetic Relatedness\",\"authors\":\"Rosamund Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-2230.12844\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"At the heart of the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) is the attempt to realise a commonly anticipated future – the opportunity, if desired, to create and raise a genetically related child. For some, existing ARTs cannot assist, yet upcoming ones such as in vitro derived gametes (IVGs) may do so. However, the desire for genetically related children is frequently critiqued in debates about new ARTs. Since most heterosexual couples can have such children without assistance, and same‐sex couples are equally likely to desire them, this is highly problematic. This article presents the moral and legal case for the legalisation of IVGs, if and when judged sufficiently safe. It analyses development of the concept of ‘treatment’ in relevant UK law; argues that it is reasonable (that is, not unreasonable) to value the project of procreative parenting, thereby refuting the arguments that there is a moral duty to adopt, or that the alternatives of adoption or donor conception should suffice; explores legal recognition of the ordinary place of reproduction in social life; and considers the implications of the rights to private and family life and to non‐discrimination, particularly under the European Convention on Human Rights, highlighting the disabling nature of infertility.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47530,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Modern Law Review\",\"volume\":\"22 6\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Modern Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12844\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12844","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

使用辅助生殖技术(ARTs)的核心是试图实现一个普遍预期的未来——如果需要的话,有机会创造和抚养一个与基因相关的孩子。对一些人来说,现有的辅助生殖技术无法提供帮助,但即将到来的辅助生殖技术,如体外衍生配子(ivg)可能会起作用。然而,在关于新的抗逆转录病毒治疗的辩论中,对基因相关儿童的渴望经常受到批评。由于大多数异性恋夫妇可以在没有帮助的情况下生下这样的孩子,而同性伴侣也同样可能想要他们,这是一个很大的问题。这篇文章提出了ivg合法化的道德和法律案例,如果判断足够安全的话。它分析了英国相关法律中“待遇”概念的发展;认为重视生育是合理的(也就是说,不是不合理的),从而驳斥了收养是道德责任的观点,或者收养或捐赠受孕的选择应该足够的观点;探讨对社会生活中普通生殖场所的法律承认;并考虑到私人和家庭生活权利以及不受歧视权利的影响,特别是根据《欧洲人权公约》,强调不孕不育的致残性质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
New Reproductive Technologies and Genetic Relatedness
At the heart of the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) is the attempt to realise a commonly anticipated future – the opportunity, if desired, to create and raise a genetically related child. For some, existing ARTs cannot assist, yet upcoming ones such as in vitro derived gametes (IVGs) may do so. However, the desire for genetically related children is frequently critiqued in debates about new ARTs. Since most heterosexual couples can have such children without assistance, and same‐sex couples are equally likely to desire them, this is highly problematic. This article presents the moral and legal case for the legalisation of IVGs, if and when judged sufficiently safe. It analyses development of the concept of ‘treatment’ in relevant UK law; argues that it is reasonable (that is, not unreasonable) to value the project of procreative parenting, thereby refuting the arguments that there is a moral duty to adopt, or that the alternatives of adoption or donor conception should suffice; explores legal recognition of the ordinary place of reproduction in social life; and considers the implications of the rights to private and family life and to non‐discrimination, particularly under the European Convention on Human Rights, highlighting the disabling nature of infertility.
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
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
×
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