Advertisement

Progress in Medical Genetics: Legal Problems

  • Irving Ladimer

Abstract

There has been an explosive increase in scientific knowledge of human genetics. The media have alerted people to the seriousness of genetic diseases and to the amazing possibilities of so-called genetic manipulation. Legally and ethically, however, there have been endless inconclusive discussions. On such basic issues as personal versus societal interests and policies regarding the population explosion in the face of limited economic resources two salient points are clear.

Keywords

Sickle Cell Anemia Sickle Cell Prenatal Diagnosis Legal Problem Genetic Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    CLARKE, C.A. Problems raised by developments in genetics. In Biology and Ethics, (F. J. Ebling, editor), London and New York, Academic Press, p. 63, 1969.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    RAMSEY, P. Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control. New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    RAMSEY, P. “Shall We ‘Reproduce’?” II. Rejoinders and future forecast. J.A.M.A., 220:1480–5, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    JAMES, G. Clinical research in achieving the right to health. New Dimensions in Legal and Ethical Concepts for Human Research, (I. Ladimer, cons. editor), Ann. N.Y.Acad. Sci., 169:301, 1970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    FRANKEL, M. S. Genetic Technology: Promises and Problems, Monograph No. 15, Program of Policy Studies in Science and Technology, George Washington University, Washington, D. C., March, 1973.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    RAMSEY, P. Screening: An Ethicist’s View. In Ethical Issues in Human Genetics: Genetic Counseling and the Use of Genetic Knowledge, (B. Hilton, et al., editors), New York and London, Plenum Press, pp. 147–161, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    KASS, L. R. Implications of prenatal diagnosis for the human right to life. In Ethical Issues in Human Genetics, (B. Hilton, et al., editors), pp. 185–200.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    CAPRON, A. M. Legal rights and moral rights. In Ethical Issues in Human Genetics, (B. Hilton, et al., editors), pp. 221–244.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    SORENSON, J. R. Social aspects of applied human genetics. Social Science Frontiers, 1971, No. 3, New York, Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ROE, et al. V. Wade, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed 2d 147; Doe V. Bolton, 93 S. Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed 2d 201 (1973)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    STONE, A. A. Abortion and the supreme court: What now? Modern Medicine 47:32–35,1973.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    GLEITMAN V. Cosgrove, 49, N.J. 22, 227 A2d 689 (1967). See Kilbrandon, Lord, The comparative law of genetic counselling. In Ethical Issues in Human Genetics. op. cit. pp. 245–259;Google Scholar
  13. 12a.
    SADLER, BLAIR, L. The Law and the Unborn Child: A Brief Review of Emerging Problems. In HARRIS, M. (editor) Early Diagnosis of Human Genetic DefectsScientific and Ethical Considerations, Fogarty International Center Proceedings No. 6, U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 211–229, 1972;Google Scholar
  14. 12b.
    LADIMER, I. Risks in the practice of modern obstetrics: A legal point of view. In Aladjem, S. (editor). Risks in the Practice of Modern Obstetrics. St. Louis, CV. Mosby Co., pp 246–270, 1972.Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    STEWART V. LONG ISLAND COLLEGE HOSPITAL, 296 NYS 2d 41 (1968). Here, the trial court awarded $10,000 to the mother and $100,000 to the defective child. The intermediate court, relying on Gleitman, ibid., Williams and Zepeda (see below) nullified the child’s award, but retained the mother’s on grounds of nondisclosure. The Court of Appeals then held that the doctors and hospital were not negligent in absence of standards regarding abortion. 238 N.E. 2d 616 (1972).Google Scholar
  16. 14.
    WILLIAMS V. State of New York, 18 NY2d, 481, 223 N.E. 2nd 343 (1966).Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    ZEPEDA V. ZEPEDA. 41 Illinois. App. 2d 240, 190 N.E. 2d 849 (1963).Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    TEDESCHI, G. On tort liability for “wrongful life”. Israel Law Review, 1:529, 1966.Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    FARROW, M. G. and JUBERG, R. C. Genetics and laws prohibiting marriage in the United States, J. A. M. A., 209:534–538,1969.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 18.
    Disclosure of genetic information: An invitational symposium. J. Reprod. Medicine: Lying In, 2, No. 5:211–230, 1969.Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    SHAH, S. A. (editor) Report on the XYY Chromosome Abnormality, Report of National Institute of Mental Health, Public Health Service Pub. No. 2103, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970; see also FRANKEL, op. cit., pp. 73–76.Google Scholar
  22. 20.
    NEEL, J. Social and scientific priorities in the use of genetic knowledge. In Ethical Issues in Human Genetics op. 1970; pp. 353–367.Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    NEEL, J. Ethical issues resulting from prenatal diagnosis. In Early Diagnosis of Human Genetic Defects. op. 1970, pp. 219–229.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irving Ladimer
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Mount Sinai School of MedicineCity University of New YorkUSA
  2. 2.Special Counsel/Health CareAmerican Arbitration AssociationNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations