TY - JOUR
T1 - Genetic Transmission of Disease: A legal Harm?
AU - Stanton, Catherine
N1 - This paper was initially presented in Prato, Italy in April 2014 during a conference which formed part of the iSEI Wellcome Strategic Programme in The Human Body: Its scope, limits and future (Grant Number: WT 087439/Z/08/Z). I would like to acknowledge with gratitude the support of Wellcome in funding that event and thank the participants for their comments on my paper.abcd
PY - 2015/10/23
Y1 - 2015/10/23
N2 - This paper considers whether existing law could potentially be used to criminalise 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.
AB - This paper considers whether existing law could potentially be used to criminalise 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.
KW - criminal law; duty to warn; genetics; negligence; wrongful life.
U2 - 10.1007/s10728-015-0306-y
DO - 10.1007/s10728-015-0306-y
M3 - Article
SN - 1573-3394
VL - 24
SP - 228
EP - 245
JO - Health Care Analysis
JF - Health Care Analysis
ER -