Assisted reproduction - Canada's Supreme Court and the "global baby"

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 365, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 459-463

  Annas, George J ^a  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANADA; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; CRIMINAL LAW; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; JURISPRUDENCE; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

EID: 79961118177     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMhle1101361     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Attorney General of Canada v. Attorney General of Quebec, 410 N.R. 199, 2010 SCC 61 (2010).
2. Assisted reproductive technologies: analysis and recommendations for public policy. New York: New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, 1998.
3. Audi T, Chang A. Assembling the global baby. Wall Street Journal. December 10, 2010:D1-D2.
4. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Human Tissue Authority, House of Lords Proceedings. February 1, 2011. (http://services.parliament.uk/ hansard/Lords/bydate/20110201/ grandcommittees/part003.html.)
5. Proceed with care: final report of the Royal Commission on new reproductive technologies. Ottawa: Canada Communications Group, 1993.
6. Assisted Human Reproduction Act (Canada), S.C. 2004, c. 2.
7. Attorney General of Quebec v. Attorney General of Canada, 2008 QCCA 1167, 298 D.L.R. 1551 (2008).
8. Annas GJ, Andrews LB, Isasi RM. Protecting the endangered human: toward an international treaty prohibiting cloning and inheritable alterations. Am J Law Med 2002;28:151-78.
9. Reproduction and responsibility: the regulation of new biotechnologies. Washington, DC: President's Council on Bioethics, 2004.
10. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006).
11. Carney S. The red market: on the trail of the world's organ brokers, bone thieves, blood farmers, and child traffickers. New York: William Morrow, 2011:135-51.
12. Annas GJ. The changing face of family law: global consequences of embedding physicians and biotechnology in the parent-child relationship. Fam Law Q 2008;42:511-28.
13. Robertson JR. Reproductive rights and reproductive technology in 2030. Washington, DC: Governance Studies at Brookings, January 21, 2011.
14. Fukuyama F, Furger F. Beyond bioethics: a proposal for modernizing regulation of human biotechnologies. Washington, DC: Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, 2007.
15. Somerville M. Children's rights and unlinking child-parent biological bonds with adoption, same-sex marriage and new reproductive technologies. J Family Studies 2007;13:179-201.
16. Coeytaux F, Darnovsky M, Fogel SB. Assisted reproduction and choice in the biotech age: recommendations for a way forward. Contraception 2011;83:1-4.
17. Joint Council of Europe/United Nations Study. Trafficking in organs, tissues and cells and trafficking in human beings for the purpose of the removal of organs. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe, 2009.
18. Todres J. Moving upstream: the merits of a public health approach to human trafficking. North Carol Law Rev 2011;89:447-506.
19. Atwood M. The handmaid's tale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986:176.
20. Chayutworakan S. Pregnant Vietnamese sent home: police hunt for Taiwanese suspect in surrogacy gang. Bangkok Post. May 31, 2011. (http://bangkokpost.com/ news/local/239743/pregnant-vietnamese-sent-home.)