Newborn screening in the genomics era

Newborn screening (NBS) exists in every state for the purpose of testing newborns for genetic medical conditions that can be severe, may be treatable, and are often not clinically evident at birth. While almost all of the diseases screened for in newborns have underlying genetic causes, NBS in its current form is performed not by testing for genetic mutations, but by testing for biochemical markers that indicate a disorder. The potential use of whole-genome newborn screening (WG-NBS) as an alternative to the current biochemical testing utilized for NBS would dramatically expand the quantity and types of information parents could learn from screening and is likely to have many implications, both positive and negative. As whole-genome sequencing (WGS) becomes more economical, it probably will be used for the purposes of NBS. However, such an expansion of NBS would contradict many of the principles that have historically guided public health screening programs and, if implemented without sufficient preparation, could result in insufficient infrastructure to accommodate the health care and data management needs that would arise. This article will first look at the past and present of NBS, then the rise of whole genome sequencing, before considering the challenges of WG-NBS, and will end with some thoughts on the path forward.     

死刑犯之生育权问题探微

生育权是人生而享有并伴随终生的最基本的人权及人格权,不能限制和剥夺.但人要实现生育权,必须受限.死刑犯作为人,当然享有生育权.学界对"死刑犯是否享有生育权"问题争执不下,固然是立法空白使然,但对生育权的享有与生育权的实现两个不同概念的混淆,才是症结所在.分别阐释"生育权的享有"及"生育权的实现",以期"抛砖引玉".     

Procreative torts: enhancing the common-law protection for reproductive autonomy

Roe v. Wade's twenty-fifth anniversary is likely to herald widespread scholarly commentary on the decision's continued vitality and the future of abortion in the United States. However, if such commentary focuses solely upon the constitutional dimensions and political aspects of a woman's right to privacy, an important dimension of this right will be overlooked. Few commentators have considered the extent to which tort law safeguards a woman's interest in reproductive autonomy. In this article, Professor Northern argues that the interest in reproductive autonomy has not yet received the full protection to which it is entitled and that tort law is poised to evolve distinct causes of action for the interference with procreative autonomy interests. Professor Northern begins with an overview of the medical and psychological literature on abortion-related risks. She goes on to discuss current trends in abortion malpractice litigation. The author then reviews the three basic types of malpractice causes of action--battery, negligence, and lack of informed consent--and explores their application to abortion malpractice claims. The focus of the article then shifts to the development of specialized procreative torts, and Professor Northern contends that courts should go beyond previous decisions to redress any substantial interference with procreative autonomy. Finally, the author asserts that legislative alternatives to the common-law development of procreative torts, such as right-to-know statutes, are less protective of women's interests. Professor Northern concludes that tort law could and should be used to more fully protect women's interests in procreative autonomy.     

论作为人权与公民权的自由权

自中世纪以来 ,自由就是人类所追求的一种价值目标和生存状态。本文从人权和公民权的角度来论述自由权。在具体论述时从自由的含义出发 ,阐述自由和自由人权 ,进而揭示自由的法律意义 ,即法律上的自由权。在此基础之上 ,本文最后简要论述了自由与平等、秩序等价值目标的矛盾和平衡。