By Shelly Simana
Can people infected with COVID-19 sue the people who transmitted the disease to them for negligence, even if those people did not do so knowingly?
This question is likely to arise soon, as people may seek damages for losses resulting from socially irresponsible conduct.
By Shelly Simana
Gene editing technologies enable people to directly change their DNA sequence by adding, removing, or replacing DNA bases. Today, for the first time, as Jennifer Doudna and Samuel Sternberg announced in their book, A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution, people “possess the ability to edit not only the DNA of every living human but also the DNA of future generations” (p. xvi). The emergence of new gene editing tools, such as CRISPR-Cas9, prime editing, and dubbed SATI, has led to momentous advances in biotechnology as the new tools make gene editing faster, easier, less expensive, and more precise than ever before.
While gene editing technologies offer great promise, they may also introduce risks with far-reaching consequences. This post focuses on the possible “dark side” of gene editing technologies and addresses some threats that the technologies might pose to human lives. While nowadays some of those risks would be deemed “science fiction,” they should be in the back of our minds as we ponder the potential impact of gene editing technologies.
By Shelly Simana
Omri Shahar was killed in a car accident when he was 25 years old. At his death, Omri’s parents petitioned the Israeli family court for posthumous sperm retrieval. The request was approved yet, one year later, they submitted an additional request—to use the sperm to fertilize a donated egg, implant the embryo in a gestational carrier, and raise the child. The basis of their request was Omri’s interest in “genetic continuity.” This interest is about individuals’ desire to leave a “piece” of themselves in the world and maintain a chain of continuity. It is about perpetuating one’s genes to future generations as a liberal expression of personal identity and a communitarian expression of family heritage. Read More
By Shelly Simana
Genetic information is quite distinguishable from much medical information due its familial nature and its unique ability to predict future health. The fact that genetic testing supplies comprehensive information about the genetic make-up of patients and their family members underlies the ethical and legal challenges faced by physicians and patients when deciding whether to disclose genetic information to family members. Failure to disclose information may “lead to harm, particularly when knowledge could result in avoidance, treatment, or prevention of a genetic condition or in significant changes to reproductive choices or lifestyle.” Due to the potential harm, one may ask herself if there is a legal “duty to warn” family members about the presence of defective genes, and if so, upon whom should it be imposed.
By Shelly Simana
The topic of posthumous reproduction has produced great interest globally due to the fundamental dilemmas it raises. The most controversial cases are the ones in which there is no explicit consent on behalf of the deceased person for using his or her gametes after death. In those cases, courts try to trace the presumed intentions of the deceased person, heavily relying on testimonies of the deceased’s family members and friends.
I recently published an article about this topic, in which I advocate for a more permissive approach toward posthumous reproduction. In this blog post, I would like to focus on a particular issue—the permission for the deceased’s partner, but not the parents, to engage in posthumous reproduction.
