Legal Expertise, Scientific Knowledge, and Medical Ethics at a Crossroads

Canadian Journal of Law and Society

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 231-241

  Acem, Elsa ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 57749165319     PISSN: 08293201     EISSN: 19110227     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0829320100009431     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Vercors, Les Animaux dénaturés (Paris: Éditions Aibin Michel, 1952).
2. For a discussion on this see Nancy L. Jones & Linda K. Bevington, “Human/Animal Transgenics: When is a Mouse Not a Mouse?”, online: The Centre for Bioethics and Human Dignity .
3. See Sonia Le Bris, Bartha Maria Knoppers & Lori Luther, “International Bioethics, Human Genetics, and Normativity” (1996–1997) 33 Hous. L. Rev. 1363
4. Sonia M. Suter, “The Allure and Peril of Genetics Exceptionalism: Do We Need Special Genetics Legislation?” (2001) 79 Wash. U.L.Q. 669.
5. Consider also the gaps in the legislation regarding human cloning. Canada's Assisted Human Reproduction Act, 2004, c. 2, prohibits the creation of a human clone (s. 5(a)).
6. It also prohibits the creation of a human embryo unless it is for the purpose of “assisted reproduction” (s. 5(b)). However, there is currently no interdiction on cloning in the United States, though several bills have been introduced in either the U.S. House of Representatives or the Senate since 1997 without being adopted. For a review of these legislative attempts see online: Centre for Genetics and Society < http://geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=305>.
7. In the United Kingdom, human cloning is not prohibited per se, but placing a cloned embryo in a women's womb is. See Human Reproductive Cloning Act, 2001, c. 23.
8. Sex selection is of course, also occurring in other countries. See e.g. Kay Johnson, “Vietnam's Girls Go Missing” Time (2 Nov 2007), online: Time < http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1680240,00.html>.
9. Sandel offers the example of Micro-Sort, an in-vitro fertilization clinic in the United States, where most would-be parents “request” a female child, at 22–23.
10. Sandel at 86.
11. Somerville foresees the loss of such traits as “courage, hope, perseverance, balance, and acceptance” as well at 189.
12. “courage, hope, perseverance, balance, and acceptance”, at 87.
13. See Tony McGleenan & Urban Wiesing, “Insurance and Genetics: European Policy Option” (2000) 7 European J. of Health Law 367.
14. Sandel at 74.
15. “Liberal eugenics” have also been termed “positive eugenics,” see Somerville, at 188.
16. There is also a case to be made that eugenics, as it intersects with population control as well as health, would inevitably fall into public and State purview. Its “voluntary” use would then be seriously put in question when coupled to State imperatives of reducing health-care costs, and increasing the health (and consequent ability to work) of the population. See Michel Foucauh, Naissance de la biopolitique (Paris: Seuil, 2004).
17. Sandel at 6–7.
18. Sandel, at 80
19. quoting from Jürgen Habermas, The Future of Human Nature (Oxford, Polity Press, 2003).
20. See also Somerville at 145.
21. Somerville at 146 & ff.
22. Sandel at 45
23. quoting William F. May. See “Comments to the President's Council on Bioethics” (October 17 2002), online: The President's Council on Bioethics .
24. See Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).
25. It is interesting to note the similarity between Dawkins' «memes», and what Vercors described as a « quanta de sensibility » nearly two decades earlier. See Vercors, Questions sur la vie à messieurs les biologistes (Paris: Editions Stock, 1973) at 39.
26. Somerville at 98.
27. Vercors, Questions, Somerville 17 at 30, 35.
28. Lewis Thomas, “The Tucson Zoo” in L. Thomas, The Medusa and the Snail: More Notes of a Biology Watcher (New York: Penguin Books, 1995) [Thomas, The Medusa].
29. Somerville at 205.
30. Sandel at 26.
31. It is interesting that though reUgion and religious ethics have explored this area, scholars seem perpetually concerned that their arguments will be assimilated to religious doctrine, and are quick to specify that they possess non-religious justifications if they oppose the new genetic technologies. For a religious perspective on this question see Viggo Mortensen, ed., Life and Death: Moral Implications of Biotechnology (Geneva: WCC Publication, 1995).
32. Sandel at 110.
33. Somerville at 95 & ff.
34. Somerville, at 97.
35. See George J. Annas, Lori B. Andrews & Rosario M. Isasi, “Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations” (2002) 28 Am. J. of Law and Medicine 151.
36. Lewis Thomas, “The Wonderful Mistake” in Thomas, The Medusa, Am. J. of Law and Medicine 20, 27 at 29.
37. P.D. James, The Children of Men (Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 1993).
38. Vercors, Questions, The Children of Men 17 at 20.
39. Furthermore, it shouldn't escape our attention that for all endeavours, including medical research, there is often more than one way of doing things. An example of this is Ian Wilmut, the scientist who pioneered human embryonic cloning, by “creating” Dolly the sheep. He recently stated (see online: “Dolly Scientist Abandons Cloning” BBC News ) that human embryos are no longer needed to pursue medical research into as yet incurable human diseases.
40. A new technique which creates stem cells from somatic cells (such as skin) has shown significant promise. Shakespeare's injunction, “Diseases desperate grown / By desperate appliance are relieved, / Or not at all.” (William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act IV, Scene 3) may not be so prescriptive after all. There may be a way to act ethically, while retaining the physician's drive to cure, and the scientist's drive to know. However, it is important to note that as a society we already have one very important limit to research protocols-namely the informed consent of the subject-which is independent from the importance of the disease being studied. In other words, it is not inconceivable to place limits upon medical research to protect important societal values-even when it may seem that barring such research a disease will forever go uncured.