LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Childs, Richardo
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects: BJ, H1, QH426
This thesis examines the relationship between rights and duties in the field of fetal gene therapy and assesses if the current regulatory position within England and Wales is compatible with the intergenerational aspects of scientific progress within fetal gene therapy (FGT). Within the field of genomics, the fetal junction has become a site where gene therapists are developing a range of medical techniques, such as fetal gene therapy and in utero stem cell therapy. Utilising such techniques raises questions about the intergenerational aspects of scientific progress and how intergenerational rights can reshape regulation. The thesis focuses upon these key questions: Are the intergenerational issues of FGT taken into account by both direct and indirect stakeholders? Can intergenerational issues override the reproductive rights of the mother? Have intergenerational issues impacted upon the clinical applications implicit and manifest in this work? Addressing such questions is important because the conflict between the rights of the mother, fetus, clinical researchers and society have the potential to delay progress in FGT.\ud \ud In addressing these questions the thesis utilised thematic analysis of relevant regulatory institutional documents, from international declarations to regulatory guidelines; and semi structured interviews of identified FGT practitioners to identify areas of potential conflict. Following the data collection and analysis, the field data identified five key areas of potential conflict, which were then assessed using the Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC) as proposed by Alan Gewirth (1978) and later altered by Beyleveld and Brownsword (2001). The thesis will argue that the field data shows that established regulatory principles such as human dignity are of limited value in relation to FGT. In other areas such as informed choice, autonomy and intergenerational equity the PGC is applied to define and partially resolve the outstanding areas necessary for consistent ethical and regulatory guidance in FGT
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Re R (A Minor) (Wardship: Consent to Treatment) [1992] Fam 11 CA .....66, 67, 151 Re S (adult: refusal of medical treatment) [1992] 4 All ER671 ................................83 Re T (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) [1993] Fam 95 .................66, 67, 81, 82, 219, 247 Re W (A Minor) (Wardship: Consent to treatment) [1993] Fam 64 ..........................67 Re Y (Mental Patient: Bone Marrow Donation) [1996] 2 FLR 787 ........................277 Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973)...........................................................................8, 20 Sidaway v Governor of the Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] 1 A.C 871 ..................138 Tameside and Glossop Acute Services Trust v CH (a patient) [1996] 1 FLR 762 ....83 Utah v. Rowland, No. 041901649 (Utah Dist. Ct.-3d Apr. 7, 2004) ...............192, 251 Vo v France (Application no. 53924/00). (2004) 79 BMLR 71..85, 87, 88, 146, 173, 243
    • W v Edgell [1990] Ch 359..........................................................................................59 Wackenheim v France CCPR/75/D/854/1999 .................................................148, 238 Whitner v South Carolina 492 S.E. 2d 777 (S.C. 1997) ..................................192, 251 X v. United Kingdom (Application no. 8416/79, Commission decision of 13 May 1980) ......................................................................................................................88 Z v Finland (1997) 25 EHRR 371..............................................................................59 Code of Federal Regulations: Title 45 - Public welfare, Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects ..............................................................................................................2, 75 Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill 2008 ........................................................95 Schneider, H. and Coutelle, C. (1999). In utero gene therapy: The case for. Nature Medicine 5(3), pp. 256-257.
    • Schulman, A. (2005). Staff Working Paper: Bioethics and Human Dignity. Available at: http://bioethicsprint.bioethics.gov/background/human_dignity.html [Accessed: 9th February 2010].
    • Vrijheid, M., Dolk, H. et al. (2000). Socioeconomic inequalities in risk of congenital anomaly. Archives of Disease in Childhood 82, pp. 349-352.
    • Wagner, A., Schoeberlein, A. et al. (2008). Fetal gene therapy: Opportunities and risk. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 61pp. 813-821.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article