| Annotation: |
Introduction: the article considers the impact of genetic research on the constitutional status of the person and citizen and the changes in their legal personality. Purpose: to analyze the legislation defining the relations in the sphere of genomic medicine, genetic engineering; to identify problems emerging as a result of recent achievements in this field and predetermining a new attitude to the concept of human in law, their rights and obligations, and their place in the system of constitutional values. Methods: the methodological framework of this research is based on the analysis of statutory regulation, technical, and comparative law methods. Results: there is a common practice to define a subject of constitutional rights and liberties using indefinite pronouns, which allows one to refer to this category not only humans but also objects of genetic manipulations (clones, chimeras). As a result, there appear initiatives to extend constitutional rights and liberties to animals as well. Such lawsuits have many times been considered by the Supreme Court of the USA. Conclusions: it is shown that the development of genomic medicine is not taken into consideration in constitutional acts of most countries of the world. However, genetic engineering has now reached the level when its results can significantly impact on the human nature, changing it, among other things, by introducing animal DNA. Such experiments raise a question about assigning a special status to the human genome and proteome. It is necessary to protect the human nature from blurring of interspecies distinctions, from creating chimeras with Homo sapiens DNA. Recommendations are given to improve the legislation in the field of genomic medicine.
|
| References: |
1. Alekseev N. N. Osnovy filosofii prava [Fun-damentals of the Philosophy of Law]. St. Petersburg, 1998. 216 p. (In Russ.).
2. Il'in I. A. Teoriya prava i gosudarstva [Theory of Law and State]. Moscow, 2003. 400 p. (In Russ.).
3. Kosareva I. A. Yuridicheskoe znachenie sosto¬yaniya zdorov'ya litsa, vstupayushchego v brak [Legal Significance of State of Health of Person Entering into Marriage]. Meditsinskoe pravo – Medical Law. 2009. Issue 1. Pp. 16–19. (In Russ.).
4. Lombroso C. Prestupnyy chelovek [Criminal Man]. Moscow, 2005. 876 p. (In Russ.).
5. Mikhaylova I. A. Nekotorye napravleniya dal'neyshego sovershenstvovaniya rossiyskogo semeynogo zakonodatel'stva [Some Areas for Further Improvement of Russia's Family Law]. Rossiyskaya yustitsiya – Russian Justitia. 2009. Issue 12. Pp. 23–25. (In Russ.).
6. Trubetskoy E. N. Entsiklopediya prava [Encyclopedia of Law]. St. Petersburg, 1998. 183 p. (In Russ.).
7. Fetyukhin Yu. M. Institut braka po novomu semeynomu zakonodatel'stvu Rossiyskoy Fede¬ratsii: avtoreferat diss. ... kand. yurid. nauk. [The Institution of Marriage under the New Family Legislation of the Russian Federation: Synopsis of Cand of jurid. sci. diss.]. Volgograd, 2000. 20 p. (In Russ.).
8. Fukuyama F. Nashe postchelovecheskoe budushchee: Posledstviya biotekhnologiches¬koy revolyutsii [Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revo¬lution]. Moscow, 2004. 352 p. (In Russ.).
9. Entsiklopedicheskiy slovar' / pod red. prof. I. E. Andreevskogo [Encyclopedic Dictionary; ed. by I. E. Andreevsky]. Vol. 11a. St. Petersburg, 1894. 960 p. (In Russ.).
10. Bard A., Soderqvist J. Netocracy: the New Power Elite and Life after Capitalism. New Jersey: Pearson FT Press, 2002. 288 р. (In Eng.).
11. Battistuzzi L., Ciliberti R., Forzano F., De Stefano F. Regulating the communication of genetic risk information: the Italian legal approach to questions of confidentiality and disclosure. Clinical Genetics. 2012. Vol. 82. Pр. 205–209. (In Eng.). DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2012.01935.x.
12. Dugan R., Wiesner G., Juengst E., O'Riordan M., Matthews A., Robin N. Duty to warn at-risk relatives for genetic disease: Genetic counselors' clinical experience. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Vol. 119C. 2003. No. 1. Pр. 27–34. (In Eng.). DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.c.10005.
13. Dugdale R. L. The Jukes: A Study in Crime, Pauperism, Disease, and Heredity. New York, 1910. 146 р. (In Eng.).
14. Feinberg J. The child's right to an open future. Aiken W., Lafollette H. Whose Child? Children's Rights, Parental Autonomy, and State Power. New Jersey, Littlefield: Adams & Co, 1980. Рр. 124–153. (In Eng.).
15. Gallo A. M. Angst D. B. Knafl K. A. Disclosure of Genetic Information within Families. American Journal of Nursing. 2009. No. 109(4). Рр. 65–69. (In Eng.). DOI: 10.1097/01.NAJ.
0000348607.31983.6e.
16. Goddard H. H. The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness. New York, 1912. 121 р. (In Eng.).
17. Grey А. Harriton V. Stephens: Life, Logic and Legal Fictions. Sydney Law Review. 2006. Vol. 28. Рр. 545–560. Available at: http://syd-ney.edu.au/law/slr/slr28_3/Grey.pdf. (accessed 15.02.2017). (In Eng.).
18. Guttmacher A. E., Collins F. S. Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Genomic Medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2003. No. 349. Pр. 562–569. (In Eng.). DOI: 10.1056/
NEJMra012577.
19. Hall M., Rich S. Patients' fear of genetic discrimination by health insurers: the impact of legal protections. Genetics in Medicine. 2000. No. 2. Рр. 214–221. (In Eng.). DOI: 10.1097/
00125817-200007000-00003.
20. Hintz J. "Wrongful life" and the law. The National Legal Eagle. 2006. Vol. 12. Issue 2. Ar¬ticle 3. Available at: http://epublications.bond.
edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=nle (accessed 15.02.2017). (In Eng.).
21. Lykken D. T. The Antisocial Personalities. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. New Jersey, 1995. 259 p. (In Eng.).
22. McKie R. Men redundant? Now we don't need women either. The Observer. 2002. 10 Feb¬ruary. (In Eng.).
23. Offit K., Groeger E., Turner S., Wads-worth E. A., Weiser M. A. The "duty to warn" a patient's family members about hereditary disease risks. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2004. No. 292(12). Pр. 1469–1473. DOI: 10.1001/jama.292.12.1469 (In Eng.).
24. Tiihonen J., Rautiainen M.-R., Ollila H. M.
and etc. Genetic background of extreme violent behavior. Molecular Psychiatry. 2015. No. 20. Pр. 786–792. (In Eng.). DOI: 10.1038/
mp.2014.130.
25. Toffler A. Future Shock. Hardback & Paperback. 1970. 430 p. Available at: http://www.eindtijdinbeeld.nl/EiB-Bibliotheek/
Boeken/Future_Shock_-_Alvin_Toffler_-.pdf (accessed 15.02.2017). (In Eng.).
26. Wilson J. W. Debating Genetics as a Predictor of Criminal Offending and Sentencing. Student Pulse. 2011. Vol. 3. No. 11. Available at: http://www.studentpulse.com/a?id=593 (acces¬sed 15.02.2017) (In Eng.).
27. Zaffaroni R. Derecho Penal. Parte General. Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2002. Available at: https://ru.scribd.com/doc/50069982/Zaffaroni-Eugenio-Raul-Derecho-Penal-Parte-General (accessed 15.02.2017) (In Eng.).
|
