暂无摘要。

At the cutting edge of research in biotechnology is the production of special genetically engineered organisms for use in an open, agricultural environment. We argue that the standard approaches to risk assessment and management employed by regulatory agencies are inadequate to the task of properly assessing the advisability of such experiments, as well as the even more significant prospect of widespread commercial use of genetically engineered organisms in agriculture. Given the current lack of sufficient information with which to make competent assessments of the risks involved and the attempts to gain such information in a timely fashion, we conclude that a compelling case for deliberate release programs has not been made.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

In this paper I discuss whether or not biographical information concerning the sperm donor should be disclosed to children conceived through donor insemination. Policies of disclosure for example in the context of adoption, have been justified on the basis of a notion of identity which emphasizes genetic ties. This notion of identity and the policies of disclosure of information concerning biological parents based on it, have been criticized by many writers, including feminists, as reinforcing explanations of human organization and development based on biological determinism rather than on ideas such as social construction. Further, this notion of identity is seen to emphasize the importance of genetic parenthood over the commitment involved in bringing up a child as a social parent. While agreeing with these criticisms of that particular notion of identity, I argue that the notion of identity as a whole should not be summarily rejected. Rather, it should be re-interpreted using a sociological approach incorporating the notion of narrative. This second narrative notion of identity is developed with reference to the situation of some groups of children, who like those born from donor insemination, generally do not have any knowledge of their biological parent[s], for example adoptees, the children of the disappeared in Argentina and child migrants. In this paper, policies of disclosure which allow these children to gain some knowledge of their biological parents are discussed in light of the two notions of identity. It is argued that disclosure may be justified on the basis of a narrative notion of identity. This allows for the rigid dichotomy created between biological determinism and social construction: the importance of social parents to the child is emphasized, however the desire a child may have to know something about her or his biological parent is not denied or dismissed.

The research presented below analyses the rhetoric of abortion jurisprudence from the perspective of fundamental principles of feminist theory. While focused primarily on the American experience, it addresses and raises questions that are on the political agenda in a significant number of contemporary societies. The feminist principles identified, and against which judicial rhetoric is assessed, include: the importance of actual life experience over abstract principles, the significance of the distinction between the public and private realms and the understanding of society as a web of relationships. Demonstrated by the relevant data is that the decisions of the judiciary restrictive of reproductive choice are characterized by a distinctly non-feminist rhetoric.

暂无摘要。

The legality of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has recently been confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the Hashmi case, based on a purposive construction of the statute. The court went on to declare tissue typing lawful and strained the wording of the statute in order to do so. The Hashmi case confirms that it would be lawful for the HFEA to license tissue typing in the absence of PGD. However, the HFEA only licenses tissue typing where PGD is also indicated, on the basis of a blanket application of the welfare of the child test set out in S 13 (5). This policy can be criticised. Firstly, a blanket approach to S 13 (5) is not appropriate. Secondly, the HFEA is applying the test too strictly when compared to the \'best interests\' test which would govern the situation were an existing child to be a potential donor. Thirdly, by licensing tissue typing in the Hashmi case, where it was the primary reason for testing, the HFEA has undermined the argument that it can be justified only in cases where it is ancillary to PGD. These arguments, coupled with human rights arguments, based on Art 8 and Art 12, could be used to challenge the legitimacy of the HFEA\'s policy. The restriction on tissue typing to cases where PGD is also indicated is not ethically justified. It offers the same direct benefit to the embryo as PGD, namely selection for implantation. PGD does not cure the relevant condition so offers no additional benefit in a causative sense. Moreover, the Kantian injunction against treating people solely as means is not breached where the child will be wanted for its own sake, as well as for its potential as a cord blood donor.

This paper considers approaches to the ethics of abortion and putative links to \"rights\" debates. In particular, it revisits two papers on the topic from the early 1970\'s, written by Judith Jarvis Thomson and John Finnis respectively. Consideration of the discourse produced by these papers to some extent reveals the strategic importance of linguistic and conceptual organisation--the rhetorical forces underlying claims to disinterested, analytical standing. In particular, the paper reviews the practical ethics analogy proposed by Thomson; the deployment of \"Hohfeldian\" rights analysis by John Finnis, the link to the abortion debate and the broader implications of such deployment in its relation to current \"rights\" discourse.