Regulating surrogacy--a contravention of human rights?

On the 2nd of October 2000, The Human Rights Act 1998 came into full force, signalling the incorporation of The European Convention on Human Rights into U.K. law. Areas of law believed to be inconsistent with the Convention may now be challenged in both The European Court of Human Rights and domestic courts. This article considers whether existing laws on the regulation of access to infertility services, in particular surrogacy, will be deemed incompatible with the ECHR. Human rights as enshrined within Articles 8 and 12 will be examined in light of recent suggestions that there may arise legal challenges by those who have had access to reproductive services restricted or denied. It will be shown that, although existing and potential future controls may arguably infringe these rights, it is nevertheless unlikely that they will be held to be in contravention of The Human Rights Act 1998.     

Regulating tissue research: do we need additional rules to protect research participants?

This article explores whether additional rules are needed for the regulation of tissue research in Europe. A human rights-based approach (referring to international documents and illustrative examples from national legislation) is taken to address the question: what is so special about tissue, in particular when compared to personal data? The existing regimes in Europe on data protection and clinical trials are presented and examined for their suitability to govern tissue research, taking into account the differences between data and tissue. Six recommendations are outlined, highlighting important points future legislation on tissue research must take into account.     

Chinese dragon or toothless tiger? Regulating the professional competence of traditional Chinese medicine practitioners

The escalation in popularity of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has begun to stimulate regulatory responses to ensure the safety and efficacy of different modalities. The Therapeutic Goods Authority in Australia oversees a scheme of listing and registration, said to lead the world. Established CAM courses now confer recognised bachelor degrees. Victoria has recently regulated Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioners, through the Chinese Medicine Registration Act 2000 (Vic), modelled on legislation regulating medical practitioners. CAM is being integrated into conventional medical (especially general) practice, and calls for the "mainstreaming" of CAM are increasing. Integrating CAM, however, involves a critical incoherence, well illustrated by the Victorian legislation. Clinical competence can only be properly assessed against standards established through scientific validation. If CAM systems, which purport to offer alternatives to science-based medicine, are regulated through conventional instruments, they may well be relinquishing the very identities which set them apart.     

Regulating information flows: Is it just? Insider trading and mandatory-disclosure rules from a free-market perspective

Much of Henry Manne’s work on insider trading emphasised that this practice enhances quick dissemination of information and ultimately efficiency. In this paper, we draw attention to the fact that regulating insider trading encroaches upon the foundations of a free-market economy, and boils down to a question of envy, rather than justice. In particular, there is nothing undesirable, fraudulent or shameful in a process through which selected agents (the insiders) transform dispersed information into specialised knowledge, and make use of it. One may be envious that insiders make a profit or avoid a loss thanks to their privileged position. Yet, insiders do not steal any information and do not violate any property right. Their only constraint is an explicit contractual agreement with their employer. In that case, the government might be required to enforce the contract. Regulation would be illegitimate.     

Resource curse for human development?

Economic Change and Restructuring - Progress in child mortality reduction and education attainment varies widely among oil-rich countries. We investigate the sources of this variation for 14...     

What is the Criminal Law for?

The traditional distinction between retributive and distributive justice misconstrues the place of the criminal law in modern regulatory states. In the context of the regulatory state, the criminal law is a coercive rule-enforcing institution – regardless of whether it also serves the ends of retributive justice. As a rule-enforcing institution, the criminal law is deeply implicated in stabilizing the institutions and legal rules by means of which a state creates and allocates social advantage. As a coercive institution, the criminal law requires justification as an instance of legitimate state authority. The operation of criminal justice institutions should therefore not be evaluated by reference to a distinct set of criteria, but should be evaluated by the same criteria that apply to coercive public institutions generally.     

Who should pay for bad genes?

Parents have long been able to influence the genetic composition of their children through their choice of a reproductive partner, if only very approximately. They are, however, increasingly able to determine the genetic make-up of their children in other, more precise ways, such as by selecting a particular gamete or embryo or by genetically modifying an embryo prior to artificial implantation. This Article discusses parents' obligations to their children and other members of the community stemming from their children's genes. In a just state, it argues, parents would be responsible for redressing any genetic disadvantage their children suffer as a result of parents' voluntary actions. Within the context of a liberal egalitarian account of distributive justice, this responsibility might most fairly be discharged through a compulsory insurance plan that provides compensation to genetically disadvantaged children when they might have had non-disadvantaged children instead would in some circumstances incur greater liability, because they could not fairly push the cost of their choices off on other members of the insurance pool. The Article also asks whether parents wrong a child by allowing it to be born with a genetic impairment when, had they taken steps to remove the impairment, the unimpaired child they had would have been a different person from the genetically disadvantaged child because the better-off child's capacities and experiences differed considerably from those that the disadvantaged child would have had. Contrary to many people's moral intuitions, the Article argues that parents do not wrong such a child. Nevertheless, parents remain morally obligated to bear any added costs occasioned by the child's impairment. Any other approach would allow them unjustly to shift the burden of their choices to other parents. Finally, the Article takes up the much debated question of whether parents harm a child by allowing it to be born with a life not worth living when they could have prevented its birth. It suggests that the answer to this question should be irrelevant to parents' legal liability. Acting on behalf of the parental insurance pool, the state may nonetheless adopt a variety of measures to help potential parents avoid giving birth to such children, which one can assume virtually all would prefer.     

Bioterrorism--also a challenge for forensic medicine?

In view of current events the question is discussed to what extent the risk of bioterrorism may be an issue relevant for forensic medicine also in Germany, although at present there seems to be no concrete threat. The cases which became known so far were either false alarms or foolish pranks (copycats), which have to be, and are indeed, prosecuted by the state (section 126 German Criminal Code). Reference is also made to the measures of disinfection recommended by the Robert Koch Institute.