Law and policy in the era of reproductive genetics

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 414-417

  Caulfield, T ^a   Knowles, L ^b   Meslin, E M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b HASTINGS CENTER   (United States)

^c Indiana University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CRIMINAL LAW; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; HUMAN CLONING; HUMAN GENETICS; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLIC OPINION; REPRODUCTION; SOCIAL ASPECT; UNITED KINGDOM;

GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; LEGAL APPROACH;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONSENSUS; CRIMINAL LAW; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; MORALS; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC OPINION; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES; RESEARCH; SAFETY;

EID: 4344630232     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2002.001370     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Devlin P. The enforcement of morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957.
2. Orentlicher D. Matters of life and death: making moral theory work in medical ethics and the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
3. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Proceed with care: final report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Ottawa: The Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, 1993.
4. Pollara Research. Benchmark survey on awareness and knowledge levels of assisted human reproduction: a national survey of Canadians. Ottawa: Health Canada, 2001.
5. INRA (Europe) - ECOSA. Eurobarometer 52.1: The Europeans and biotechnology. Brussels, UK INRA (Europe), 2000. http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/ (accessed 28 April 2004).
6. Wellcome Trust: Medicine & Society Programme. Public perspectives on human cloning. London: The Wellcome Trust, 1998.
7. Pollora Research & Earnscliffe Research and Communications. Public opinion research into biotechnology issues, 5th wave. Ottawa: Biotechnology Assistant Deputy Minister Coordinating Committee, 2001.
8. Carroll J. Nine in 10 Americans oppose human cloning. Gallup News Service http://www.gallup.com/content/login.aspx?ci=4468 (accessed 28 Apr 2004).
9. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Ethical issues in human stem cell research, vol II: religious perspectives. Bethesda, MD: US Government Printing Office, 2000.
10. Canadian NewsWire. Three-quarters of Canadians surveyed approve of embryonic stem cell research using spare embryos. http://www.jdrf.ca/press/index.htm (accessed 28 Apr 2004).
11. Health Canada. Assisted human reproduction: frequently asked questions. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/archives/releases/2001 (accessed 14 Jun 2002).
12. Scoffield H. Canadians favour limited use of clones for emergencies only, survey finds. The Globe & Mail 2000 Jun 16:A2.
13. PricewaterhouseCoopers. Canadians support cloning of human organs, survey says. http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/201/300/ cdn_medical_association/cmaj/cmaj_today/2001/02_20.htm (accessed 28 Apr 2004).
14. Anon. Canadians support cloning of human organs, new survey suggests. Observer 2001 Feb 22:B3.
15. Health Canada. Proposal for legislation governing assisted human reproduction: draft legislation. http://www.hc-sc.gc.co/english/reproduction/legislation.pdf (accessed 14 Jun 2002).
16. Healy P. Statutory prohibitions and the regulation of new reproductive technologies under federal law in Canada. McGill Law J 1995;40:905-46.
17. Government of Canada. The criminal law in Canadian society. Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1982.
18. Law Reform Commission of Canada. Our criminal law. Ottawa: Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1976.
19. Buchanan A. An ethical framework for biological samples policy. In: National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research involving human biological materials: ethical issues and policy guidance, vo II: commissioned papers, B1-31. http://bioethics.georgetown.edu.nbac.pubs.html (accessed 14 Jun 2002).
20. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Cloning human beings. Rockville, MD, US Government Printing Office, 1997. http://bioethics.georgetown.edu.nbac.pubs.html (accessed 14 Jun 2002).
21. Kass L. Life, liberty and the defence of dignity. San Francisco, 2002.
22. Midgley M. Biotechnology and monstrosity-why we would pay attention to the "yuk factor". Hastings Cent Rep 2000;30:7-15.
23. Kaebnick GE. On the sanctity of nature. Hastings Cent Rep 2000;30:16-23.
24. Knowles L. Science policy and the law: reproductive and therapeutic cloning. N Y Univ J Legis Public Policy 2000;4:13-22.
25. Caulfield T. Clones, controversy and criminal law: a comment on the proposal for legislation governing assisted human reproduction. Alta Law Rev 2001;39:335-46.
26. Knowles L. Primordial stem cell research: implications for international regulation of assisted reproductive technologies. J Womens Heal 1999-2000;1:31-58.
27. Hawkes N. British ruling complicates clone research. The Times 2001 Nov 26.
28. Aldhous P. A world of difference. Nature 2001;414:838.
29. Parens E, Knowles LP. Reproductive genetics and public policy: shaping the future. In press.
30. Knowles LP. Reprogenetics: a chance for meaningful regulation. Hastings Cent Rep 2002;32:3.
31. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. Scientific and medical aspects of human cloning. Washington: National Academy Press, 2002; http://search.nap.edu/books/0309076374/html/ (accessed 12 Jul 2002).
32. Canadian Bar Association: national health law and family law sections. Submission on draft legislation on assisted human reproduction. Health Law Review 2002;10:25-9.
33. California Advisory Committee on Human Cloning. Cloning Californians: report of the California Advisory Committee on Human Cloning. http://lawschool.stanford.edu/library/special/cloning.californians.pdf (accessed 12 Jul 2002).
34. Meslin EM, Orentlicher D, Quaid K. Let agency limit human cloning, not law. Indianapolis Star 2001 Dec 14:A17.
35. Meslin EM. Engaging the public in policy development: the National Bioethics Advisory Commission report on research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decision making capacity. Account Res 1999;7:227-40.
36. Meslin EM. When policy analysis is carried out in public: some lessons for bioethics from NBAC's experience. In: Humber J, Almeder R, eds. The nature and prospect of bioethics: interdisciplinary perspectives. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 2003:87-111.
37. Meslin EM, Shapiro HT. Bioethics inside the beltway: some initial reflections on NBAC. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2002;12:95-102.