Issues of establishing legal liability for offenses related to the diagnosis and human genome editing
https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2019.105.8.062-067
Abstract
The global experience of giving treatment using human genome diagnostics and editing technologies in different countries shows different results. This sphere of public relations raises many disputes on a number of issues in the context of bad faith of those physicians who participate in carrying out the procedures under consideration. Unfortunately, wrongdoers in this area use modern technologies for their own sinister purposes. For the Russian Federation, the problem under consideration is not as urgent as for many more medically developed States. However, if such precedents take place abroad, with a high probability they should be expected in Russia. On this basis, it is necessary to review the legal regulation in terms of establishing penalties for offences in this area. The author analyzes the current normative legal regulation of domestic genetic engineering and gives some proposals for its reform.
About the Authors
A. K. Burtsev
FSBI of the Federal Clinical Research Centre of Federal Medical-Biological Agency of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
PhD in Medicine, First Vice-Rector of the Academy of Postgraduate Education,
125371, St. Moscow, Volokolamskoye sh., d. 91
S. A. Vasiliev
Sevastopol State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
PhD in Law, Associate Professor of the Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law,
299053, Sevastopol, ul. Universitetskaya, d. 33
References
1. Bogatyreva N. V. Napravleniya sovershenstvovaniya zakonodatel’stva ob administrativnoj otvetstvennosti v oblasti genno-inzhenernoj deyatel’nosti // Administrativnoe pravo i process. — 2015. — № 12. — S. 62—65.
2. Borisov A. N., Borisova M. A. Kommentarij k Federal’nomu zakonu ot 23 iyunya 2016 g. № 180-FZ «O biomedicinskih kletochnyh produktah» (postatejnyj). — M. : Yusticinform, 2017. — 420 s.
3. Platonova A. V. Problema otvetstvennosti v bioetike // Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. — 2009. — № 318. — S. 70—72.
4. Romanovskij G. B., Romanovskaya O. V. Problemy pravovogo regulirovaniya primeneniya biomedicinskih tekhnologij v Rossii i za rubezhom // Geny i kletki. — 2016. — T. 11. — № 1. — S. 75—81.
5. Collins P. J., Hale C. M., Xu H. Edited course of biomedical research: leaping forward with CRISPR // Pharmacological Research. — 2017. — № 125. — P. 258—265.
6. Khambhati K., Bhattacharjee G., Singh V. Current progress in CRISPR-based diagnostic platforms // Journal of Cellular Biochemistry. — 2019. — № 120 (3). — P. 2721—2725.
7. Knott G. J., Doudna J. A. CRISPR-Cas guides the future of genetic engineering // Science. — 2018. — № 361 (6405). — P. 866—869.
8. Rehmann-Sutter C. Why Human Germline Editing is More Problematic than Selecting Between Embryos: Ethically Considering Intergenerational Relationships // New Bioethics. — 2018. — № 24 (1). — P. 9—25.
9. Rippe K. P., Willemsen A. The idea of precaution: Ethical requirements for the regulation of new biotechnologies in the environmental field // Frontiers in Plant Science. — 2018. — № 871. — P. 1868.
10. Šuleková M., Fitzgerald K. T. Can the thought of Teilhard de Chardin Carry Us past current contentious discussions of gene editing technologies? // Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. — 2019. — № 28 (1). — P. 62—75.
Review
For citations:
Burtsev A.K., Vasiliev S.A. Issues of establishing legal liability for offenses related to the diagnosis and human genome editing. Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2019;(8):62-67. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2019.105.8.062-067
Views:
518
Email this article 