Which bank? A guardian model for regulation of embryonic stem cell research in Australia

In late 2005 the Legislation Review: Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 (Cth) and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 (Cth) recommended the establishment of an Australian stem cell bank. This article aims to address a lack of discussion of issues surrounding stem cell banking by suggesting possible answers to the questions of whether Australia should establish a stem cell bank and what its underlying philosophy and functions should be. Answers are developed through an analysis of regulatory, scientific and intellectual property issues relating to embryonic stem cell research in the United Kingdom, United States and Australia. This includes a detailed analysis of the United Kingdom Stem Cell Bank. It is argued that a "guardian" model stem cell bank should be established in Australia. This bank would aim to promote the maximum public benefit from human embryonic stem cell research by providing careful regulatory oversight and addressing ethical issues, while also facilitating research by addressing practical scientific concerns and intellectual property issues.     

Surrogacy: is there a case for legal prohibition?

Surrogacy arrangements are a complex and challenging issue for legal regulation. On the one hand, if we wish to promote personal autonomy and enable the infertile to experience parenthood, there is a case for allowing these arrangements to proceed. However, objections to legal sanctioning of surrogacy include concerns for the surrogate and the child born through the surrogacy arrangement. Legally sanctioning surrogacy may also adversely affect social conceptions of women's roles or may be considered a form of commodifying women's reproductive capacities. This article examines these challenges to allowing surrogacy, but concludes that surrogacy should not be legally prohibited.     

Enforcing eAccessibility: is the current legal framework adequate?

Regulating the web and information and communication technology (ICT) is a hot-button issue that often becomes misconstrued as the self-interests of private parties. In fact, ensuring accessibility for people with disabilities is often not a priority for companies that provide ICT goods and services. In this manner, people with disabilities are excluded from the global ICT market, which presents a problem of rights assessment and a market gap. By examining the way law and policy implement and augment the state of eAccessibility, this article aims to critically assess the eAccessibility legal framework. It focuses on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the European Union relevant legislation, and on national legislation, taking as a case study two representative countries: Ireland and Spain. These countries have been chosen due to their high and low ‘Measuring eAccessibility’ scores, respectively. The particular technology chosen for examination includes websites, self-service terminals and mobile phone apps.     

Embryonic stem cell research: one small step for science or one giant leap back for mankind?

At the forefront of modern debate over the ethical use of biotechnology is embryonic stem cell research. In this poignant analysis of its legitimacy, the author examines the history of this research in light of the United States' policy favoring the protection of human beings over scientific progress. Stem cells, which can divide in culture to create specialized cells in the human body, possess significant potential for curing disease, particularly when taken from human embryos. However, as evidenced by the research atrocities committed under the Nazi regime, the benefits of human research do not come without a cost to humanity. Recognizing this, the later trial of these scientists produced the Nuremberg Code, a set of natural law principles guiding future research on humans that continues to influence health policy decisions. Drawing on this background, the author first considers the appropriate legal status for a human embryo. Biologically, the characteristics of a human embryo place it between human tissue and a constitutional person. Judicially, the answer is even less clear. The author analyzes case law in the context of abortion and in vitro fertilization, as well as classifications by the common law, state legislation, and the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, to conclude that a human embryo should be subject to the same legal and ethical restrictions as any other "human subject." Accordingly, the author argues that embryonic stem cell research violates the ethical standards and purposes of the Nuremberg Code and should be banned by federal legislation. Such a prohibition will fulfill the societal policy choice of protecting potential life and vulnerable human subjects.     

The concept of exceptionality: a legal farce?

How do we decide which treatments should be offered by the National Health Service (NHS) when we cannot afford to fund them all? In the absence of a positive appraisal by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), which mandates the provision of a treatment by the NHS, Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are free to decide whether to provide a particular drug to some, or all, of their population. However, as public bodies, it is a well-established principle of Administrative Law that PCTs are not at liberty to fetter the exercise of their own discretion. They must recognise the possibility that some patients will have exceptional circumstances, and as a consequence, any general policy prohibiting the funding of a drug cannot be absolute. In the absence of statutory guidance on what might constitute exceptional, clinicians are left guessing as to whether their patients might be eligible for funding on the grounds of exceptionality. Using the context of expensive cancer drugs, I will examine the concept of exceptionality from clinical, moral, and legal perspectives, focussing particularly on the role of social factors in determining exceptionality. I will review the cases where PCTs' decisions not to fund cancer drugs were subject to legal action and argue that the courts have provided little guidance on interpreting the term exceptional, and that the concept has a limited role to play in the allocation of scarce health resources at a local level.