Escaping the tyranny of the embryo? A new approach to ART regulation based on UK and Australian experiences.
The early legislative responses to fertilization of human oocytes in vitro exaggerated the protection of the embryo at the expense of the interests of other parties. Although more recent legislative changes have lessened this embryonic grip, it nonetheless still distorts legal thinking and is fundamentally in conflict with biological understanding. Drawing largely on experiences in the UK and Australia, a proposal is explored that reframes the legislative approach to the regulation of assisted reproductive technology (ART) with the following objectives: (i) to align more closely the legal and biological understandings of the earliest stages of human development; (ii) to place the legislative focus on objective, intent and outcome; and in the process (iii) to disentangle legally and conceptually the status of the embryo from that of the potential child. Experiences in the UK and Australia are drawn on, because these two jurisdictions have a common legal heritage and were among the earliest players both scientifically and legally but have pursued very different legal routes to their current legislative practices.
Johnson
Martin H
MH
Department of Anatomy, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, UK. mhj21@cam.ac.uk
D001315:Australia; D004622:Embryo, Mammalian / Q000502:physiology*; D047108:Embryonic Development; D005260:Female; D005306:Fertilization; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D053652:Nuclear Transfer Techniques; D027724:Reproductive Techniques, Assisted / Q000941:ethics* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000592:standards; D013094:Spermatozoa / Q000502:physiology; D006113:United Kingdom