Authors:Grigorios Athanasiadis Pages: 6 - 23 Abstract: A central issue in the ethical public debate on genetic enhancement concerns the inequalities in skills, opportunities and welfare that might be created and established between rich and poor. Many argue that if only the wealthy can have access to enhancements, then existing unjust inequalities will be consolidated and new ones will emerge in the future. Therefore, they argue, state has a role to play against the exacerbating of existing inequalities and the emergence of future ones and determine a genetic policy that will regulate a fair distribution of genetic means under specific principles of justice. This article has two main sections. In the first and shorter section, I examine a case where access to enhancement would be unlimited for everyone. In the second and longer section, I examine the principles that a state should adopt in order to treat the unjust inequalities that could result from limited access to enhancement. Finally, I outline part of my own approach to a just genetic state policy. PubDate: 2021-10-07 DOI: 10.12681/bioeth.28149 Issue No:Vol. 7, No. 2 (2021)
Authors:Natalia Amasiadi Pages: 24 - 38 Abstract: Introduction: Scientific progress has considerably increased the risk of unexpected bioterrorist attacks. In accordance comes the necessity for a potent “shield” of protection, known as “biosecurity” and widely referred as “biodefense”. However, ethical challenges and concerns, arising along with bioterrorism, are inevitable to address.Methods: COVID-19 outbreak immerged the significance of preexisting powerful biodefense systems. Primary factors to consider are theirs efficacy, the availability of capable emergency plans, adequate personal protective equipment, and sufficient funding. Least but not last comes the proper comprehension of risk assessment and the promotion of prevention, which contributes fundamentally in avoiding the outbreak, even before the harmful biological agent has begun spreading itself among the community.Results: Meticulous data recording will promote our knowledge of effectively constructive biodefense systems and will contribute in identifying crucial bioethical issues, as well to legislate accordingly, nationally, and internationally, in order to duly address the emerging threats. Conclusion: Drastic measures against bioterrorism are inevitable to take, so is the foundation of sufficient biodefense systems, which should lay on scientific knowledge that drives from relevant research, and general consent. Ultimately is, the establishment of international laws, to propel collaboration among nations and eliminate future bioterrorist attacks. PubDate: 2021-10-07 DOI: 10.12681/bioeth.28157 Issue No:Vol. 7, No. 2 (2021)
Authors:Teresa Andreani Pages: 40 - 50 Abstract: In the last three decades, the dilemma of End-of-Life is one of the most disputed bio-juridical questions Italy is confronting with. By raising highly sensitive ethical, legal and political dilemmas, it has deeply divided the Italian society, the scientific community and the political arena. In the context of a raging controversy, the Italian Parliament has opted for silence. Thus, an evolutive, judicial route has marked the legal frame in response to numerous, concrete demands of recognition of the freedom of self-determination and value of dignity in the final phase of life. In this review article, an overview of the judicial evolution of the complex mosaic of end-of-life issues will be firstly offered through three cases, pillars on which the latest judicial evolution on assisted suicide lays its foundations. Secondly, the issue of assisted suicide will be singularly addressed through the examination of the Cappato case which has outlined the path for the historical ruling of the Italian Constitutional Court, no'242 of 2019 on the constitutional illegitimacy of the crime of assistance to suicide under article 580 of the Italian Criminal Code. Precisely, the Court has pointed out several, concurrent requirements in presence of which an active conduct directly connected with suicide is not criminally relevant: the autonomous and free formation of the individual will, the irreversible nature of the disease, the ongoing practice of a life-saving treatment, the intolerability of the physical or psychological sufferings and the mental capacity to self-determination. Among the numerous, emerging, interpretative questions, the latest Trentini case, in which the requirement of life-saving treatment has been interpreted as inclusive of pharmacological therapy and of every material, sanitary life-saving assistance, will be further evaluated. Conclusively, a cross section of the fragile interplay between the legislative power and the judiciary power will be depicted in reference to the main open interpretative questions related to the enforcement of the constitutional ruling and a portrait of the upcoming scenerios, as the existing legislative drafts and the prepositive referendum question, will be concisely examined. PubDate: 2021-10-07 DOI: 10.12681/bioeth.28158 Issue No:Vol. 7, No. 2 (2021)
Authors:Adiba Firmansyah Pages: 51 - 68 Abstract: The launch of a nationwide consultation in January 2021 by the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on the regulation of genetic technologies has been used as an opportunity by the UK Government to gauge public and scientific opinion on the applications of gene editing in agriculture and aquaculture. In particular, the consultation sought to consider the controversial question of whether gene editing (GE) should be subject to the same regulations as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The distinction between GE and GMO products, as well as between the legal regulations governing them, are highly important: currently, the UK still follows the EU’s restrictive approach, whereby gene editing is regulated in the same way as GMOs. However, in light of the UK’s departure from the EU, the UK government seems willing to reconsider this approach and adopt a new regulatory framework characterised by less stringent controls. Accordingly, this review paper examines the current legal framework on gene editing and GMOs in the UK and EU, as well as in other relevant jurisdictions, before then examining the Defra consultation in light of the mixed responses to it from both the scientific community and the general public. The paper concludes with a number of considerations that should inform any proposed post-Brexit reform of the framework that allows for the correct balance to be struck between scientific development, food security, human health, and the environment. PubDate: 2021-10-07 DOI: 10.12681/bioeth.28152 Issue No:Vol. 7, No. 2 (2021)
Authors:Sabah Mine Cangil Pages: 69 - 74 Abstract: Mobile applications are a beneficial tool to fight the coronavirus. With the mobile tracing applications, it became easier to cut the chain of transmission of the virus and reduce the number of daily cases. Many countries developed their applications and made them available to their citizens. While using these applications, it is necessary to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. This frequent processing of individuals' health data has created legal problems regarding the protection of personal data. The purpose of this paper is to present a study on the Turkish Covid-19 tracing application “Hayat Eve Sığar-HES” and the legal issues behind the application. PubDate: 2021-10-07 DOI: 10.12681/bioeth.28163 Issue No:Vol. 7, No. 2 (2021)
Open Access journal
