Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Health Care Anal ; 19(3): 282-94, 2011 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21842138

ABSTRACT

This paper argues that a certain way of thinking about the function of the biobank-about what it does and is constructed for as a social institution aimed at 'some good'-can and should play a substantial role in an effective biobanking ethic. It first exemplifies an 'institution shaped gap' in the current field of biobanking ethics. Next the biobank is conceptualized as a social institution that is apt for a certain kind of purposive functional definition such that we know it by what it does and what it is designed to do. This purpose is then characterized further as essentially incorporating the human goods the institution is designed to serve, such that it plays a useful and indispensible role in how it should operate, i.e. in the ethics and governance of biobanking. Finally the ethical scope and limitations of such a theory is clarified by a discussion of some theoretical objections and suggested practical examples of its application.


Subject(s)
Biological Specimen Banks/ethics , Ethics, Institutional , Bioethical Issues , Biological Specimen Banks/organization & administration , Humans
3.
J Med Ethics ; 37(12): 747-51, 2011 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21670320

ABSTRACT

In a recent case in the UK, six men stored their sperm before undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer in case they proved to be infertile after the treatment. The sperm was not properly stored and as a result was inadvertently destroyed. The men sued the NHS Trust that stored the sperm and were in the end successful. This paper questions the basis on which the judgement was made and the rationale behind it, namely that the men 'had ownership' of the sperm, and that compensation was thus due on the grounds that the men's property had been destroyed. We first argue that the claim is erroneous and enhances the tendency towards the commodification of body parts. We then suggest that the men could have been compensated for the harm done to them without granting property rights, and that this would, at least in philosophical and ethical terms, have been more appropriate. To help illustrate this, we draw on a parallel case in French law in which a couple whose embryos had been destroyed were overtly denied ownership rights in them. Finally, we suggest some possible ethical and practical problems if the proprietary view expressed in the UK ruling were to become dominant in law, with particular focus on the storing of genetic information in biobanks. We conclude that, although compensation claims should not necessarily be ruled out, a 'no property in the body' approach should be the default position in cases of detached bodily materials, the alternative being significantly ethically problematic.


Subject(s)
Compensation and Redress/ethics , Sperm Banks/legislation & jurisprudence , Commodification , Ethics, Medical , France , Human Body , Human Rights , Humans , Infertility, Male/chemically induced , Male , Malpractice/legislation & jurisprudence , Morals , Ownership/ethics , Ownership/legislation & jurisprudence , Sperm Banks/standards , Spermatozoa , State Medicine , United Kingdom
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...