IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v5y2016i1p5-d64004.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

CRISPR, a Crossroads in Genetic Intervention: Pitting the Right to Health against the Right to Disability

Author

Listed:
  • Shawna Benston

    (Center for Research on Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic & Behavioral Genetics, Columbia University, 1051 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10032, USA)

Abstract

Reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs), including gene-editing technology, are being discovered and refined at an exponential pace. One gene-editing innovation that demands our swift attention is CRISPR/Cas9, a system of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats and a protein called Cas9. As CRISPR and other RGTs continue being developed, we must remain vigilant concerning the potential implications of genetic-engineering technology on our interpersonal and legal relationships. In the face of increasingly numerous and refined RGTs, we must maintain the rights of everyone: potential parents, prospective children, and individuals (both living and prospective) with disabilities. For those who wish to become parents, how should procreation be regulated in light of developing RGTs, especially gene-editing technology? What duties do parents owe their children, and when does such a duty attach? What role should RGTs play in parents’ fulfillment of their duties to their children? This article will contextualize the right to health and what I will term the “right to disability” in the CRISPR/Cas9 landscape. The article will then explore these rights in reference to the “subjunctive-threshold” interpretation of harm. Finally, I will argue that RGTs must be thoughtfully regulated, with such regulations taking into account the opinions of geneticists, bioethicists, and lay people concerning both the right to health and the right to disability.

Suggested Citation

  • Shawna Benston, 2016. "CRISPR, a Crossroads in Genetic Intervention: Pitting the Right to Health against the Right to Disability," Laws, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:5:y:2016:i:1:p:5-:d:64004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/5/1/5/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/5/1/5/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward Lanphier & Fyodor Urnov & Sarah Ehlen Haecker & Michael Werner & Joanna Smolenski, 2015. "Don’t edit the human germ line," Nature, Nature, vol. 519(7544), pages 410-411, March.
    2. Asch, A., 1999. "Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion: A challenge to practice and policy," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 89(11), pages 1649-1657.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hefferon, Kathleen L. & Herring, Ronald J., 2017. "The End of the GMO? Genome Editing, Gene Drives and New Frontiers of Plant Technology," Review of Agrarian Studies, Foundation for Agrarian Studies, vol. 7(1), July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aisling De Paor & Peter Blanck, 2016. "Precision Medicine and Advancing Genetic Technologies—Disability and Human Rights Perspectives," Laws, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-23, August.
    2. Gregor Wolbring & Lucy Diep, 2016. "The Discussions around Precision Genetic Engineering: Role of and Impact on Disabled People," Laws, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-23, September.
    3. Vassy, Carine & Rosman, Sophia & Rousseau, Bénédicte, 2014. "From policy making to service use. Down's syndrome antenatal screening in England, France and the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 67-74.
    4. Graham, Ruth H. & Robson, Stephen C. & Rankin, Judith M., 2008. "Understanding feticide: An analytic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 289-300, January.
    5. Katie Hasson & Marcy Darnovsky, 2020. "Genetic Justice: Identity and Equality in the Biotech Age," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 63(1), pages 140-144, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:5:y:2016:i:1:p:5-:d:64004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.