Library

Naujausi A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T V W Y Z

       
Pavadinimas: THE LAW AND ETHICS OF MEDICAL RESEARCH: INTERNATIONAL BIOETHICS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Autoriai: AURORA PLOMER
Metai:
ISBN: 1-85941-687-X
Brūkšninis kodas: 003075033744
Ieškoti VUB kataloge
Anotacija:

Aurora Plomer

     The growing globalisation of medical research and the application of new biotechnologies in morally contested areas has forced a revision of international ethical guidelines.
     This book examines the controversies surrounding biomedical research in the 21st century from a human rights perspective, analysing the evolution and changes in form and content of international instruments regulating the conduct of biomedical research.
     The approach adopted is comparative and includes an evaluation of human rights and UK and US law on embryonic stem cell research, the HIV/AIDS trials in the developing world, the Alder Hey Inquiry, and the human radiation and nerve gas experiments on human subjects in the US and the UK. This is the first book to analyse some of the major issues in biomedical research today from an international, comparative human rights perspective. 'Controversy about medical research is rarely out of the news. This book covers the law and ethics touching on a broad range of different kinds of research, from embryo research to research on the dead, and offers a comparative and multinational insight into the regulation of medical and scientific advances. Health professionals, lawyers, ethicists and, indeed, research subjects will learn a great deal from this work.'

Professor Margaret Brazier, University of Manchester
Contents include:

     From Bioethics to Human Rights in Biomedicine; Human Rights and Universal Principles; Non-therapeutic Research: Domestic Remedies and Convention Rights; Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Human Dignity and the Right to Life; The Rights of the Dead: Research on Human Tissue and Body Parts after Bristol and Alder Hey; Research in Developing Countries: New Ethics and New Threats to Human Rights.

About the Author:
Aurora Plomer, BA, LLB, MA, PhD, is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Nottingham.



Acknowledgments Table of Cases Introduction
1 FROM BIOETHICS TO HUMAN RIGHTS IN BIOMEDICINE
1.1 The origins of international bioethics
1.2 The growth of bioethics and 'principle' driven regulation
1.3 Ethical v legal regulation
1.4 The importance of human rights
2 HUMAN RIGHTS AND UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES
2.1 Ethical divides: the background to the Convention
2.2 Before the Convention: Helsinki
2.3 US human radiation experiments: the ACHRE report
2.4 A morally bankrupt framework?
2.5 The Convention on Human Rights & Biomedicine (CHRB)
2.6 Individual v social benefit
2.7 Convergence on fundamental and universal values?
3 NON-THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH: DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND
CONVENTION RIGHTS
3.1 The centrality of consent in human rights instruments
3.2 The UK Porton Down experiments
3.3 Definitions of medical research
3.4 Civil remedies in English law
3.5 Canada and the US
3.6 Autonomy and bodily integrity as constitutionally
protected fundamental rights
3.7 Convention rights
3.8 Article 3
3.9 Article 8
3.10 Limitations: national security
4 EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH:
HUMAN DIGNITY AND THE RIGHT TO LIFE
4.1 Moral perspectives on human dignity
4.2 Legal concepts of human dignity and the right to life
4.3 Human dignity in international human rights instruments
4.4 Human dignity in the new human rights instruments in biomedicine
4.5 The right to life under the ECHR
4.6 The embryo's right to life in Constitutional courts in Europe
4.7 Policy and law in the US
4.8 Points of convergence
5 THE RIGHTS OF THE DEAD: RESEARCH ON HUMAN TISSUE AND
BODY PARTS AFTER BRISTOL AND ALDER HEY
5.1 The meaning of human corpses
5.2 Moral perspectives
5.3 English common law
5.4 Models for reform
5.5 A human rights perspective
5.6 Balancing individual v societal interests
6 RESEARCH IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: NEW ETHICS AND
NEW THREATS TO HUMAN RIGHTS
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The ethics of AZT trials: ethical imperialism and ethical conflict
6.3 Controversy over Helsinki standards
6.4 The international drift away from Helsinki
6.5 'Effective' v 'best "current"' treatment
6.6 Who benefits? Individual v society
6.7 Controlling abuse
6.8 The Convention on Human Rights & Biomedicine (CHRB)
6.9 The future of human rights in biomedical research
6.10 Deficiencies in European human rights law
6.11 Procedural limits
6.12 Towards transnational justice
Bibliography Index

TABLE OF CASES

A v UK (1998) 27 EHRR 611 61
AK, Re [2001] 1 FLR 129 50
AZ v BZ 431 Mass 725 NE 2d 1051 (2000) .......................................................... 87, 89
Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v UK (1985) 7 EHRR 471 21
Abdullahi v Pfizer Inc [2003] (02-9223) (2d Cir 8 October 2003);
2002 WL 31082956 (SDNY, 17 September 2002) (NO 01 CIV 8118) 5, 7
Adams v Arthur 333 Ark 53; 969 SW 2d 598 (1998) 48
Albright v Oliver 510 US 266,114 S Ct 807 (1994) 59
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821…………………………….. 98,106,108
Ancheff v Hartford Hospital 260 Comm 785 799 A 2d 1067 (2002) 48
B (Mrs) v An NHS Hospital Trust [2002] 2 All ER 449……………………………… 49,50
Belgian Linguistic Case No 2 A 6 (1968) 134
Bigio v Coca-Cola Co 239 F 3d 440,451-53 (2d Cir 2000) 6
Bolam v Friern Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 ………………….. 52,54
Bolitho (Deceased) v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232 53
Briiggemann and Scheuten v Federal Republic of
Germany (1981) EHRR 244 76, 79,80
Chapel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 1232 53
Chatterton v Gerson [1981] QB 432
.........................................................................52,60
Chester v Afshar [2002] 3 All ER 552 ….......................................................................52-54
Christopher David Hossack v Ministry of Defence 18/4/2000 LTL
19/4/2000 Official Judgment Document No AC7000221 53
Cincinnati Radiation Ling, In Re 874 F Supp 796 (SD Ohio 1995)………………..58, 64, 65
Colins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374 50
Davis v Davis 842 SW 2d 588 Term (1992)………………………………………..11, 86, 88,91
De Freitas v O'Brian [1995] 6 Med LR 108 52
Deny v Peek [1886-90] All ER Rep 1 51
Devi v West Midlands Regional Health Authority (1980) SCLY 687 50
Dobson and Another v North Tyneside Health Authority
and Another [1996] 4 All ER474 …………………………………………………..101,102
Doodeward v Spence (1908) 6 CLR 406 101
Engel v Netherlands (No 1) (1976) 1 EHRR 647 , 63
Evans vAmicus Healthcare Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 727 92
RRe [1990] 2 AC 1 106
Glass v UK [2004] 1 FLR 1019 …...............................................................................18,129
Golder v UK (1979-80) 1 EHRR 524 20
Grimes v Kennedy Krieger Institute Inc 366 Md 29;
782 A 2d 807 (Md, 16 August 2001) (NO 128 SEPT
TERM 2000,129 SEPT TERM 2000) 5,120
Guzzardi v Italy [1980] ECHR 5 21
Halushka v University of Saskatchewan
(1965) 53 DLR 2d 436; (1965) 52 WWR 608 55,56
Heinrich v Sweet 62 F Supp 2d 282 (D Mass 1999) 60
Holtham v Arnold [1986] 2 BMLR 123 99
Hoover v West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services
984 F Supp 978 (1997 SDWVr), affd 129 F 3d 1259 (11 superth Cir 1997) 57
Hopp v Lepp 112 DLR 3d 67 (1980) 56
Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750 53
Inse v Austria A126 (1987) 133
Ireland v UK (1978) 2 EHRR 25 110
JB v MB 170 NJ 9; 783 A 2d 707 (NJ, 14 August 2001) 87,89
Jacobson v Massachusetts 197 US 11 (1905) 59
Johnson v Arthur 65 Ark App 220; 986 SW 2d 874
(Ark App, 3 March 1999) (NO CA98-660, CA98-661) 5,12
Kass v Kass 696 NE 2d 174 (NY 1998) 87,88
Keenan v UK (2001) 10 BHRC 319 ………………………………………………………..61,11
Kelly v UK [2002] 2 FCR 97 6
Kudla v Poland [2002] 1 PLR 380 6
Laskey v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 39 6
Letang v Cooper [1965] 232 1 QB 5
Litowitz v Litowitz 48 P 3d 261 Wash (2002) 87,9
MB (Medical Treatment), Re [1997] 2 FLR 426 4
McAllister v Lewisham and North Southwark
Health Authority [1994] 5 Med LR 343 1
McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR1 5
Nancy Cruzan v Missouri Dept of Health 58 LW 4916 (1990) 108
Norris v Ireland (1991) 13 EHRR 186 1
Open Door Counselling and Dublin Well Woman
v Ireland (1993) 15 EHRR 244 8
Osman v UK [1999] 1 FLR 193 107
Paton v UK (1981) 3 EHRR 408 79
Pierce v Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp 84 NJ 58,
417 A 2d 505; 115 LRRM (BNA) 3044; 12 ALR 4th 520;
101 LabCasP55,477; 1IER Cases 109 (NJ, 28 July 1980) ……………………...5,120
Pretty v UK (2002) 35 EHRR 1; [2002] 2FLR45 ……………………………62,63,73,107-10
RvBrown [1994] AC212 63
R v Cambridge Health Authority ex p B [1995] 1 WLR 898 107
R vHFEA ex p Blood [1997] 2 WLR 806 000
R v Kelly [1999] QB 521 ……………………………………………………………………100,102
Rv Lynn (1788) 2 Term Rep 733 99
Rv Richardson (Diane) [1999] QB444 50
R v Tabassum [2000] 2 Cr App R 328; [2000] Crim LR 686, CA 50
R v Young
See Rv Lynn (1788)—
Rasmussen v Denmark (1985) 7 EHRR 372 21
ReesvHughes [1946] 2AllER47 99
Reibl v Hughes (1980) 114 DLR (3d) 1 56
Robertson ex rel Robertson v McGee 2002 WL 5350-45
(NDOkla,28January2002) (NO01CV60) ………………………………………..5,57,120
Rochin v California 342 US 165 (1952) 59
Roe v Ministry of Health [1954] 2 QB 66 54
Roe v Wade 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147 (1973) ……………………………88, 91
S v UK [2001] 2 FCR 246 110
Schmerber v California 384 US 757 (1966) 59
Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal and
the Maudsley Hospital [1985] 2 WLR 871 53
Simms v Simms [2003] 2 WLR 1465………………………………………………………..46,47
Smith v Barking, Havering and Brentwood Health
Authority [1994] 5 Med LR 285 53
Smith and Gradyv UK (1999) 29 EHRR 493 64
SoeringvUK(1989) 11 EHRR 439 ………………………………………………………61,110
Stadt v University of Rochester 921 F Supp 1023 (WDNY 1996) 60
T, Re [1992] 4 All ER 649…………………………………………………………………….49-51
Thlimmenos v Greece [2000] ECHR 161 133
Tyrer vUK [1978] ECHR2 71
United States v Stanley 483 US 669 710; 107 S Ct 3054;
3066 97 L Ed 2d 550 (1987)……………………………………………………………..64, 65
VOv France, Application No 539244/00, 8 July 2004 82
W (Adult: Refusal of Treatment), Re, The Independent, June 17,2002;
Lawtel 2/7/2002 49
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 492 US 490 (1989) 88
Weiss v Solomon (1989) Carswell Que 72 56
Whalen v Roe 429 US 589; 97 S Ct 869 (1977) 59
White v Paulsen 997 F Supp 1380,1383 (1998) .- 57
Whitlock v Duke University 637 F Supp 1463; 33 Ed Law
Rep 1082 (MDNC, 16 June 1986) (NO C-84-149-D)………………………5,51,56, l20
Williams v Williams (1882) 20 Ch D 659; (1882) 15 Cox CC 39…………………………99,102
Williams (CJ) Funeral Service of Telford v Commissioners of
Customs & Excise VAT & Duties Tribunal [1999] V & DR 318 99
Wilsherv Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 All ER 871 53
Wilson v Pringle [1986] 2 All ER 440 58
Wright v The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre
206 FRD 679 (2002) 57
X v Germany (1985) 7 EHRR 152…………………………………………………………61, 111
X and Y v Netherlands (1986) 8 EHRR 235 18
Z v UK [2001] 2 FCR 246 61
Zango and Others v Pfizer (FHC/K/CS/204/2001) 6
Zimmer v Ringrose (1981) 124 DLR 3rd 215.............................................................54,561

Comments are closed.