Catherine Stanton

The moral status of the embryo post-Dolly

Cameron and Williamson have provided a provocative and timely review of the ethical questions prompted by the birth of Dolly. The question Cameron and Williamson seek to address is “In the world of Dolly, when does a human embryo acquire respect?”. Their initial discussion sets the scene by providing a valuable overview of attitudes towards the embryo, summarising various religious, scientific, and philosophical viewpoints. They then ask, “What has Dolly changed?” and identify five changes, the first being that fertilisation is no longer required to create an embryo. Following this analysis they then ask when an embryo created other than by fertilisation begins to acquire respect. This paper explores the ethical and legal issues highlighted by Cameron and Williamson’s paper.

Criminalising Contagion: Legal and Ethical Challenges of Disease Transmission and the Criminal Law.

This report summarises the papers given at the 4 seminars funded by the ESRC. The report also highlights other outputs of the project.

Genetic Transmission of Disease: A legal Harm?

This paper considers whether existing law could potentially be used to criminalize the transmission of genetic disease. The paper argues that even if an offence could be made out, the criminal law should not be involved in this context for many reasons, including the need to protect reproductive liberty and pregnant women’s rights. The paper also examines whether there might be scope for civil claims between reproductive partners for a ‘failure to warn’ of potential genetic harm and argues there are strong policy grounds for resisting such claims. If such a duty were to exist, there might, in the future, be scope for a child to bring a claim under the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability Act) 1976. Such a claim could be for the failure by the child’s father to warn her mother, which in turn led to the loss of opportunity to have treatment in utero which could have prevented the disability. It is suggested that the same arguments which supported granting maternal immunity under the Act would also support paternal immunity and that, therefore the issue of the lack of paternal immunity under the Act should be revisited.

Maternal transmission of HIV infection: a crime against my child?

This paper considers whether section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which has been used to prosecute those who transmit the HIV virus in sexual relationships (eg, R v Konzani), could be used to prosecute women (in England and Wales) who transmit the virus to their child during pregnancy, delivery or via breast feeding. The discussion concludes that prosecution for transmission in pregnancy/delivery is unlikely. However, it is argued that there might be scope to prosecute the transmission of the virus via breast feeding in the event that there was sufficient evidence. However, this would also be subject to the Crown Prosecution Service deeming such a prosecution to be in the public interest. The paper does not seek to examine the ethical issues involved. However, it acknowledges that this issue is part of a broader debate as to whether, and if so, when, it is appropriate to criminalise the transmission of disease.

Patient information: to share or not to share?

This commentary considers the General Medical Councils new guidance, Confidentiality: Good Practice in Handling Patient Information, which came into effect in April 2017. The commentary highlights some of the changes from the previous guidance and argues that, while some areas could have been developed further, the new guidelines are in general more detailed and user-friendly than previously, and will therefore be of benefit to practitioners. The commentary also highlights further developments on the horizon, such as new data protection legislation.