Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in Europe: Diversity of legislation a challenge to the community and its citizens

Medicine and Law

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 309-323

  Soini, S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Assisted reproduction; Embryo; Hereditary disease; Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD); Reproductive tourism; Sex selection

Indexed keywords

LEUKOCYTE ANTIGEN;

ALLOGENEIC HEMATOPOIETIC STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION; ARTICLE; BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMMUNITY CARE; EUROPEAN UNION; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC DISORDER; GENETIC SCREENING; HLA MATCHING; HUMAN; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MENTAL STRESS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEX DETERMINATION; SIBLING;

EID: 34447269923     PISSN: 07231393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Soini S, Ibarreta D, Anastasiadou V, et al. The Interface between assisted reproductive technologies and genetics: technical, social, ethical and legal issues, pg. 602-605. Eur J Hum Genet. 2006; 14: 588-645.
2. Ibid.
3. Clarke AJ. The Process of genetic counselling: beyond non-directiveness. In: Harper PS and Clarke AJ (eds.) Genetics, Society and Clinical Practice. BIOS Scientific Publishers 1997.
4. Harper JC, Boelaert K, Geraedts J, et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium data collection V: Cycles from January to December 2002 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2003. Human Reprod. 2006;21:3-21.
5. Goldman J.M, Schmitz N, Niethammer D and Gratwohl A: Allogeneic and autologous transplantation for haematological diseases, solid tumours and immune disorders: current practice in Europe in 1998. Bone Marrow Transplantation 1998;21:1-7.
6. Pennings G; Schots R and Liebaers I: Ethical considerations on preimplantation genetic diagnosis for HLA typing to match a future child as a donor of haematopoietic stem cells to a sibling. Human Reproduction 2002; 17:534-538.
7. Boyle, R.J, Savulescu J: Ethics of using preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select a stem cell donor for an existing person. BMJ 2001; 323: 1240-1243.
8. UNESCO International Bioethics Committee (IBC): Report on PGD and Germ-Line Intervention 2003.
9. The ESHRE ETHICS and Law Task Force, Taskforce 9: The Application of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for human leukocyte antigen typing of embryos. Human Reproduction 2005; 20:845-847.
10. Thomas, C. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: development and regulation. Med Law 2006;25:365-378.
11. Ray P.F, Munnich A, Nisand I, Frydman R, Vekemans M, and Viville S, the French GET - DPI: The place of 'social sexing' in medicine and science. Human Reprod. 2002;17:248-249; Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) Sex selection: options for regulation 2003 (www.hfea.gov.uk)
12. Harris, J: Sex selection and regulated hatred. J Med Ethics 2005;31:291-294
13. Harris, J: No sex selection please, we're British. J Med Ethics 2005;31:286-288
14. Baldwin, T. Reproductive liberty and elitist contempt: reply to John Harris. J Med Ethics 2005;31:288-290;
15. Dahl Edgar: Boy or Girl: Should Parents be Allowed to Choose the Sex of Their Children? Cardiff Centre for Ethics Law & Society, February 2005 (http://www.ccels.cardiff.ac.uk/literature/publications/2005/ dahltpaper.html).
16. Harris and Dahl (note 11).
17. McLean S. Sex-selection: Intergenerational justice or injustice. Med Law 2005;24:761-773.
18. Shenfield F, Pennings G, Devroye P, Sureau C, Tarlatzis B and Cohen J. ESHRE Taskforce 5: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Human Reprod 2003;18:649-651.
19. Thornhill AR, De Die-Smulders CE, Geraedts JP, et al. ESHRE PGD Consortium 'Best practice guidelines for clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS)' Hum Reprod. 2005;20:35-48.
20. King, D.S: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the new eugenics. J Med Ethics 1999;25:176-182;
21. Fasouliotis SJ, Schenker JG: Ethics and assisted reproduction. Eur J Obst Gyn Repr Biol 2000:90:171-180.
22. Flinter FA: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis [Editorial] BMJ. 2001;322:1008-9.
23. Habermas J. The Future of Human Nature, pg.95-98. Polity Press 2003, Great Britain.
24. WHO Review of ethical issues in Medical genetics, WHO Geneva 2003.
25. Mason JK, Laurie GT. Law and Medical Ethics. 7th Ed. Oxford University Press 2005.
26. Pembrey ME: In the light of preimplantation genetic diagnosis: some ethical issues in medical genetics revisited. Eur J Hum Genet 1998: 6: 4-11.
27. Knoppers B.M and Isasi R. M. "Regulatory Approaches to Reproductive Genetic Testing," Human Reprod. 2004;19:2695-2701
28. Polar body diagnosis is performed on the by-products resulting from the developing oocyte in meiosis at a very early state of the fertilisation. This technique is seen as to maintain the integrity of the embryo because only by-products of the meiosis are used for analysis, not the embryo itself. (See note 1, pg. 595).
29. Ethikrat (German national ethics council). "Polar Body Diagnosis 2004" and "Genetic diagnosis before and during pregnancy 2003"www.ethikrat.org
30. Krones et al., Expert and patients opinions towards preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in Germany. RBM online Public, 2005; 10. January 1.
31. Pennings, Guido: Legal harmonisation and reproductive tourism in Europe. Human Reprod. 2004; 19:2689-2694.
32. Braude, Peter: Preimplantation Diagnosis for Genetic Susceptibility. NEJM2006;355;541-543.
33. Human Genetics Commission (HGC): Response to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority on the consultation on preimplantation genetic diagnosis, 2001. www.hgc.gov.uk.
34. Lag om genetisk integritet m.m. 2006:351.
35. The Council of Europe: Steering Committee on Bioethics (CDBI): The Protection of Human Embryo in vitro. Report by the Working Party on the Protection of the Human Embryo and Fetus, CDBI-CO-GT3 (2003) 13. Strasbourg, 19 June 2003; WHO Review of ethical issues in Medical genetics, WHO Geneva 2003 and Current Practices and controversies in assisted reproduction, Report of a WHO Meeting 2001. WHO Geneva 2002; UNESCO International Bioethics Committee (IBC): Report on PGD and Germ-Line Intervention 2003.
36. E.g. in France Comité consultatif national d'éthique pour les sciences de la vie et de la santé (CCNE) "Reflections concerning an extension of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis", No 72, 2002 and in Germany Ethikrat (note 22).
37. Jónsdóttir I (ed.) PGD and Embryo Selection. Report from an international conference on Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and embryo selection. TemaNord 2005:591. Nordic Council of Ministers 2005.
38. Note 15.
39. Note 14.
40. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society (PGDIS). Guidelines for good practice in PGD. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 2004 Vol. 9, No. 4. 430-434.
41. Pennings (note 23), and Turoni G. New law forces Italian couple with genetic disease to implant all their IVF embryos. BMJ 2004; 328:1334.
42. Note 3.
43. C-158196 Kohllv. Union des Caisses de Maladie, C-120/95 Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des Employés Privés as landmark cases, further followed by, i.e., C-368/98 Vanbraekel, C-157/99 Smits/Peerbooms.
44. E.g., Wismar M. ECJ in the driving seat on health policy. But what's the destination? Eurohealth 2001:7;5-6.
45. An early case related to abortion: Eur Court of Justice C-159/90. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd v Stephen Grogan and others.
46. Craig, P, De Búrca, G. EU Law. Text, cases, and materials. 3rd Ed, pg. 811. Oxford University Press, 2003.