The Experts below are selected from a list of 447 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Jacques Testart - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
episcientific aspects of the epigenetic factors in Artificial Procreation
Human Reproduction, 1998Co-Authors: Jacques TestartAbstract:For 20 years Artificial methods for helping sterile couples to procreate have been expanding rapidly. In addition to hormonal treatments for induction of numerous mature oocytes at each stimulated menstrual cycle, laboratory techniques have been proposed, including principally in-vitro fertilization (IVF), which may include sperm microinjection into the oocyte (ICSI), embryo culture in medium alone or in co-culture with feeder cells, and embryo cryopreservation. These Artificial procedures have to be analysed, not only with respect to their clinical efficacy (percentage of successful attempts) but also in terms of their eventual impact on various aspects of human life. In addition to potentially altering the health of patients or their offspring, these techniques may have economic, social and psychological consequences. Animal experiments are necessary prior to the clinical application of any new technique. However their results are only indicative since there are species specific factors and extrapolations to humans are more or less tentative. Moreover experimental animals are usually healthy whereas medically-assisted Procreation (MAP) techniques concern individuals with abnormal performances stemming at times from genetic alterations which may interfere with offspring characteristics. Although several studies reveal lower developmental rates for IVF and cultured mammalian embryos (Massip et al., 1984), no anomalies have been reported, even with frozen– thawed embryos. The only differences found between experimental and control animals were the higher birthweight of certain newborns in bovines produced by IVF (Behboodi et al., 1995) and the decreased viability of bovines or ovines in case of in-vitro procedures or nuclear transfer (Willadsen et al., 1991). In fact, enhanced fetal growth can result from invitro culture of embryos, asynchronous embryo transfer, or progesterone treatment of the mother soon after ovulation. There is evidence to suggest that cell lineage differentiation in the manipulated embryo is altered, resulting in preferential allocation of cells to the trophectoderm and aberrant fetal growth with a larger than normal placenta. Changes in the regulation of early gene expression could result from such
-
Safety of embryo cryopreservation: Statistical facts and artefacts Episcientific aspects of the epigenetic factors in Artificial Procreation
1998Co-Authors: Jacques TestartAbstract:For 20 years Artificial methods for helping sterile couples to procreate have been expanding rapidly. In addition to hormonal treatments for induction of numerous mature oocytes at each stimulated menstrual cycle, laboratory techniques have been proposed, including principally in-vitro fertilization (IVF), which may include sperm microinjection into the oocyte (ICSI), embryo culture in medium alone or in co-culture with feeder cells, and embryo cryopreservation. These Artificial procedures have to be analysed, not only with respect to their clinical efficacy (percentage of successful attempts) but also in terms of their eventual impact on various aspects of human life. In addition to potentially altering the health of patients or their offspring, these techniques may have economic, social and psychological consequences. Animal experiments are necessary prior to the clinical application of any new technique. However their results are only indicative since there are species specific factors and extrapolations to humans are more or less tentative. Moreover experimental animals are usually healthy whereas medically-assisted Procreation (MAP) techniques concern individuals with abnormal performances stemming at times from genetic alterations which may interfere with offspring characteristics. Although several studies reveal lower developmental rates for IVF and cultured mammalian embryos (Massip et al., 1984), no anomalies have been reported, even with frozen‐ thawed embryos. The only differences found between experimental and control animals were the higher birthweight of certain newborns in bovines produced by IVF (Behboodi et al., 1995) and the decreased viability of bovines or ovines in case of in-vitro procedures or nuclear transfer (Willadsen et al., 1991). In fact, enhanced fetal growth can result from invitro culture of embryos, asynchronous embryo transfer, or progesterone treatment of the mother soon after ovulation. There is evidence to suggest that cell lineage differentiation in the manipulated embryo is altered, resulting in preferential allocation of cells to the trophectoderm and aberrant fetal growth with a larger than normal placenta. Changes in the regulation of early gene expression could result from such
Spagnolo, Antonio Gioacchino - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
La procreazione Artificiale all\u2019attenzione della Corte interamericana dei diritti dell\u2019uomo. Il \u201cCaso Gretel Artabia Urillo et Al. Vs. Costa Rica\u201d
2012Co-Authors: Casini Marina, Casini Carlo, Spagnolo, Antonio Gioacchino, Santamaria D'angelo Rafael, Meaney Joseph, Nikas NikolasAbstract:Il contributo esamina il \u201cCaso n. 12.361 Gretel Artavia Urilla et Al. vs. Costa Rica\u201d sul quale si attende una pronuncia della Corte interamericana dei diritti umani. La vicenda ha origine dalla sentenza della Corte costituzionale costaricana (del 15 marzo 2000 n. 2000-02306) che aveva annullato, per ragioni di forma e di sostanza, il Decreto Ejecutivo n. 24029-S1 (del 3 febbraio 1995) sulla procreazione Artificiale umana. La vicenda prosegue davanti alla Commissione interamericana chiamata in causa da una \u201cPetici\uf3n\u201d che accusa la Repubblica del Costa Rica di aver violato i diritti di alcune coppie in attesa di realizzare il loro \u201cprogetto parentale\u201d. Il divieto di fecondazione Artificiale confliggerebbe, in sintesi, con il diritto alla privacy e alla vita familiare, con il diritto di fondare una famiglia con il principio di uguaglianza contenuti nella Convenzione americana dei diritti umani (\u201cPatto di San Jos\ue8\u201d). Al termine di un lungo percorso e di un ampio dibattito, la Commissione ha ritenuto che tali diritti fossero stati violati e ha rimesso il caso alla Corte interamericana dei diritti dell\u2019uomo. Con riferimento a questa nuova fase, nell\u2019articolo si d\ue0 conto del \u201cEscrito de Amici Curiae\u201d presentato alla Corte dal Movimento per la vita italiano, dall\u2019Istituto di Bioetica, dall\u2019Asociaci\uf3n Crece Familia-CreceFam, dal Coordinamento di Human Life International e da Bioethics Defend Found. Nell\u2019\u201cEscrito\u201d si afferma che il divieto del Costa Rica non viola la Convenzione americana sui diritti umani che afferma: \u201cOgni persona ha diritto al rispetto della propria vita. Tale diritto \ue8 protetto dalla legge e, in generale, \ue8 tutelato a partire dal momento del concepimento. Nessuno pu\uf2 essere privato arbitrariamente della vita (art. 4/1). Nel parere, inoltre, si avanzano argomenti di ordine scientifico e giuridico a sostegno del divieto di procreazione Artificiale, in nome del riconoscimento della dignit\ue0 umana e del conseguente diritto alla vita dell\u2019essere umano nella fase pi\uf9 giovane della sua esistenza. Questo diritto, primo fra tutti, \ue8 gi\ue0 ampiamente accolto nella Convenzione americana sui diritti dell\u2019uomo sottoscritta e ratificata dalla Repubblica del Costa Rica.Human Artificial Procreation before the Inter-American Court on Human Rights. The \u201cCase Gretel Artabia Urilla et Al. vs. Costa Rica\u201d. The article deals with the \u201cCase n. 12.361 Gretel Artavia Urilla et Al. vs. Costa Rica\u201d which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is going to decide. This case has its roots in the Supreme Court of Costa Rica\u2019s decision (n. 2000-02306, March 15, 2000) which annulled the Decree n. 24029-S1 (February, 3, 1995) on human Artificial Procreation because of both formal and substantial aspects. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the Costa Rica considered that in vitro fertilization constituted a threat against human life before birth. Afterwards, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights received a \u201cPetici\uf3n\u201d which charged Costa Rica with a violation of the rights of some couples who wanted to achieve parenthood by medically assisted Procreation. In short, according to Petitioner, the ban on in vitro fertilization violated the right to privacy and family life, the right to raise a family and equality before the law and equal protection established in the American Convention on human rights (\u201cPact of Saint Jos\ue9\u201d). At the end of a long iter and an extended debate, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted the case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-Ameri can Court of Human Rights claiming the violation of said rights and asking the Court to rule and declare the international responsability of the Costa Rican Republic. Regarding this new stage, the article relates the \u201cEscrito de Amici Curiae\u201d sent to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by the Italian Movement for the Life, the Institute of Bioethics of teh Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Asociaci\uf3n Crece Familia-CreceFam, Human Life International and the Bioethics Defense Fund. This \u201cEscrito\u201d argues that Costa Rica\u2019s ban does not violate the American Convention on Human Rights which says that \u201cEvery person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life\u201d (article 4/1). Besides the \u201cEscrito\u201d presents scientific and legal arguments corroborating the ban on Artificial human Procreation in the light of modern idea of human rights, recognition of human dignity and the right to life of human beings in the youngest stages of their lives. This right, the primary or first right, is already widely recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights, signed and ratified by Costa Rica\u2019s Republic
-
La procreazione Artificiale all’attenzione della Corte interamericana dei diritti dell’uomo. Il “Caso Gretel Artabia Urilla et Al. vs. Costa Rica”
2012Co-Authors: Casini M, Casini C, Santamaria D’, Meaney J, Nikas N, Spagnolo, Antonio GioacchinoAbstract:Il contributo esamina il \u201cCaso n. 12.361 Gretel Artavia Urilla et Al. vs. Costa Rica\u201d sul quale si attende una pronuncia della Corte interamericana dei diritti umani. La vicenda ha origine dalla sentenza della Corte costituzionale costaricana (del 15 marzo 2000 n. 2000-02306) che aveva annullato, per ragioni di forma e di sostanza, il Decreto Ejecutivo n. 24029-S1 (del 3 febbraio 1995) sulla procreazione Artificiale umana. La vicenda prosegue davanti alla Commissione interamericana chiamata in causa da una \u201cPetici\uf3n\u201d che accusa la Repubblica del Costa Rica di aver violato i diritti di alcune coppie in attesa di realizzare il loro \u201cprogetto parentale\u201d. Il divieto di fecondazione Artificiale confliggerebbe, in sintesi, con il diritto alla privacy e alla vita familiare, con il diritto di fondare una famiglia con il principio di uguaglianza contenuti nella Convenzione americana dei diritti umani (\u201cPatto di San Jos\ue8\u201d). Al termine di un lungo percorso e di un ampio dibattito, la Commissione ha ritenuto che tali diritti fossero stati violati e ha rimesso il caso alla Corte interamericana dei diritti dell\u2019uomo. Con riferimento a questa nuova fase, nell\u2019articolo si d\ue0 conto del \u201cEscrito de Amici Curiae\u201d presentato alla Corte dal Movimento per la vita italiano, dall\u2019Istituto di Bioetica, dall\u2019Asociaci\uf3n Crece Familia-CreceFam, dal Coordinamento di Human Life International e da Bioethics Defend Found. Nell\u2019\u201cEscrito\u201d si afferma che il divieto del Costa Rica non viola la Convenzione americana sui diritti umani che afferma: \u201cOgni persona ha diritto al rispetto della propria vita. Tale diritto \ue8 protetto dalla legge e, in generale, \ue8 tutelato a partire dal momento del concepimento. Nessuno pu\uf2 essere privato arbitrariamente della vita (art. 4/1). Nel parere, inoltre, si avanzano argomenti di ordine scientifico e giuridico a sostegno del divieto di procreazione Artificiale, in nome del riconoscimento della dignit\ue0 umana e del conseguente diritto alla vita dell\u2019essere umano nella fase pi\uf9 giovane della sua esistenza. Questo diritto, primo fra tutti, \ue8 gi\ue0 ampiamente accolto nella Convenzione americana sui diritti dell\u2019uomo sottoscritta e ratificata dalla Repubblica del Costa Rica.The article deals with the \u201cCase n. 12.361 Gretel Artavia Urilla et Al. vs. Costa Rica\u201d which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is going to decide. This case has its roots in the Supreme Court of Costa Rica\u2019s decision (n. 2000-02306, March 15, 2000) which annulled the Decree n. 24029-S1 (February, 3, 1995) on human Artificial Procreation because of both formal and substantial aspects. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the Costa Rica considered that in vitro fertilization constituted a threat against human life before birth. Afterwards, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights received a \u201cPetici\uf3n\u201d which charged Costa Rica with a violation of the rights of some couples who wanted to achieve parenthood by medically assisted Procreation. In short, according to Petitioner, the ban on in vitro fertilization violated the right to privacy and family life, the right to raise a family and equality before the law and equal protection established in the American Convention on human rights (\u201cPact of Saint Jos\ue9\u201d). At the end of a long iter and an extended debate, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted the case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights claiming the violation of said rights and asking the Court to rule and declare the international responsability of the Costa Rican Republic. Regarding this new stage, the article relates the \u201cEscrito de Amici Curiae\u201d sent to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by the Italian Movement for the Life, the Institute of Bioethics of teh Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Asociaci\uf3n Crece Familia-CreceFam, Human Life International and the Bioethics Defense Fund. This \u201cEscrito\u201d argues that Costa Rica\u2019s ban does not violate the American Convention on Human Rights which says that \u201cEvery person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life\u201d (article 4/1). Besides the \u201cEscrito\u201d presents scientific and legal arguments corroborating the ban on Artificial human Procreation in the light of modern idea of human rights, recognition of human dignity and the right to life of human beings in the youngest stages of their lives. This right, the primary or first right, is already widely recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights, signed and ratified by Costa Rica\u2019s Republic
Martyn Evans - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Concerted Action’s main observations
2016Co-Authors: Donald Evans, Martyn EvansAbstract:Fertility, infertility and the human embryo: ethics, law and practice of human Artificial Procreation
-
fertility infertility and the human embryo ethics law and practice of human Artificial Procreation
Human Reproduction Update, 1996Co-Authors: Donald Evans, Martyn EvansAbstract:This paper presents the key elements of the Final Report to the European Commission from a Concerted Action (no. BMH1-CT92–1276) sponsored under the Commission’s BIOMED programme. The purpose of that Concerted Action (CA) was to bring together scholars from a variety of European countries and a variety of academic and clinical disciplines to examine the ethics, law and practice of clinical assisted reproduction services and research upon human embryos. (The detailed objectives of the Concerted Action are given below in paragraph 1.2.) As the name implies, the Concerted Action ‘concerted’ or coordinated the research activities of these individual scholars—activities that would otherwise have been undertaken in isolation, if at all. The Report is presented here in two parts. Part One describes the Concerted Action, and presents its conclusions and recommendations, together with a series of cases embodying specific legal, clinical and ethical problems in the field of human assisted reproduction and research in human embryology. These cases were used as a focus by the participating scholars in producing their conclusions and recommendations. Part Two consists of a synoptic academic reflection upon the issues of substance which the participating scholars identified and addressed in the course of their investigations. The substantive papers themselves could of course not be presented here, but as well as being submitted to the European Commission as a part of the original Final Report they have been published in two volumes (Evans, D. (ed), 1996, Creating the Child and Conceiving the Embryo) in March 1996, and as such are in the public domain.
Nikas Nikolas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
La procreazione Artificiale all\u2019attenzione della Corte interamericana dei diritti dell\u2019uomo. Il \u201cCaso Gretel Artabia Urillo et Al. Vs. Costa Rica\u201d
2012Co-Authors: Casini Marina, Casini Carlo, Spagnolo, Antonio Gioacchino, Santamaria D'angelo Rafael, Meaney Joseph, Nikas NikolasAbstract:Il contributo esamina il \u201cCaso n. 12.361 Gretel Artavia Urilla et Al. vs. Costa Rica\u201d sul quale si attende una pronuncia della Corte interamericana dei diritti umani. La vicenda ha origine dalla sentenza della Corte costituzionale costaricana (del 15 marzo 2000 n. 2000-02306) che aveva annullato, per ragioni di forma e di sostanza, il Decreto Ejecutivo n. 24029-S1 (del 3 febbraio 1995) sulla procreazione Artificiale umana. La vicenda prosegue davanti alla Commissione interamericana chiamata in causa da una \u201cPetici\uf3n\u201d che accusa la Repubblica del Costa Rica di aver violato i diritti di alcune coppie in attesa di realizzare il loro \u201cprogetto parentale\u201d. Il divieto di fecondazione Artificiale confliggerebbe, in sintesi, con il diritto alla privacy e alla vita familiare, con il diritto di fondare una famiglia con il principio di uguaglianza contenuti nella Convenzione americana dei diritti umani (\u201cPatto di San Jos\ue8\u201d). Al termine di un lungo percorso e di un ampio dibattito, la Commissione ha ritenuto che tali diritti fossero stati violati e ha rimesso il caso alla Corte interamericana dei diritti dell\u2019uomo. Con riferimento a questa nuova fase, nell\u2019articolo si d\ue0 conto del \u201cEscrito de Amici Curiae\u201d presentato alla Corte dal Movimento per la vita italiano, dall\u2019Istituto di Bioetica, dall\u2019Asociaci\uf3n Crece Familia-CreceFam, dal Coordinamento di Human Life International e da Bioethics Defend Found. Nell\u2019\u201cEscrito\u201d si afferma che il divieto del Costa Rica non viola la Convenzione americana sui diritti umani che afferma: \u201cOgni persona ha diritto al rispetto della propria vita. Tale diritto \ue8 protetto dalla legge e, in generale, \ue8 tutelato a partire dal momento del concepimento. Nessuno pu\uf2 essere privato arbitrariamente della vita (art. 4/1). Nel parere, inoltre, si avanzano argomenti di ordine scientifico e giuridico a sostegno del divieto di procreazione Artificiale, in nome del riconoscimento della dignit\ue0 umana e del conseguente diritto alla vita dell\u2019essere umano nella fase pi\uf9 giovane della sua esistenza. Questo diritto, primo fra tutti, \ue8 gi\ue0 ampiamente accolto nella Convenzione americana sui diritti dell\u2019uomo sottoscritta e ratificata dalla Repubblica del Costa Rica.Human Artificial Procreation before the Inter-American Court on Human Rights. The \u201cCase Gretel Artabia Urilla et Al. vs. Costa Rica\u201d. The article deals with the \u201cCase n. 12.361 Gretel Artavia Urilla et Al. vs. Costa Rica\u201d which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is going to decide. This case has its roots in the Supreme Court of Costa Rica\u2019s decision (n. 2000-02306, March 15, 2000) which annulled the Decree n. 24029-S1 (February, 3, 1995) on human Artificial Procreation because of both formal and substantial aspects. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the Costa Rica considered that in vitro fertilization constituted a threat against human life before birth. Afterwards, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights received a \u201cPetici\uf3n\u201d which charged Costa Rica with a violation of the rights of some couples who wanted to achieve parenthood by medically assisted Procreation. In short, according to Petitioner, the ban on in vitro fertilization violated the right to privacy and family life, the right to raise a family and equality before the law and equal protection established in the American Convention on human rights (\u201cPact of Saint Jos\ue9\u201d). At the end of a long iter and an extended debate, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted the case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-Ameri can Court of Human Rights claiming the violation of said rights and asking the Court to rule and declare the international responsability of the Costa Rican Republic. Regarding this new stage, the article relates the \u201cEscrito de Amici Curiae\u201d sent to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by the Italian Movement for the Life, the Institute of Bioethics of teh Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Asociaci\uf3n Crece Familia-CreceFam, Human Life International and the Bioethics Defense Fund. This \u201cEscrito\u201d argues that Costa Rica\u2019s ban does not violate the American Convention on Human Rights which says that \u201cEvery person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life\u201d (article 4/1). Besides the \u201cEscrito\u201d presents scientific and legal arguments corroborating the ban on Artificial human Procreation in the light of modern idea of human rights, recognition of human dignity and the right to life of human beings in the youngest stages of their lives. This right, the primary or first right, is already widely recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights, signed and ratified by Costa Rica\u2019s Republic
Donald Evans - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Concerted Action’s main observations
2016Co-Authors: Donald Evans, Martyn EvansAbstract:Fertility, infertility and the human embryo: ethics, law and practice of human Artificial Procreation
-
fertility infertility and the human embryo ethics law and practice of human Artificial Procreation
Human Reproduction Update, 1996Co-Authors: Donald Evans, Martyn EvansAbstract:This paper presents the key elements of the Final Report to the European Commission from a Concerted Action (no. BMH1-CT92–1276) sponsored under the Commission’s BIOMED programme. The purpose of that Concerted Action (CA) was to bring together scholars from a variety of European countries and a variety of academic and clinical disciplines to examine the ethics, law and practice of clinical assisted reproduction services and research upon human embryos. (The detailed objectives of the Concerted Action are given below in paragraph 1.2.) As the name implies, the Concerted Action ‘concerted’ or coordinated the research activities of these individual scholars—activities that would otherwise have been undertaken in isolation, if at all. The Report is presented here in two parts. Part One describes the Concerted Action, and presents its conclusions and recommendations, together with a series of cases embodying specific legal, clinical and ethical problems in the field of human assisted reproduction and research in human embryology. These cases were used as a focus by the participating scholars in producing their conclusions and recommendations. Part Two consists of a synoptic academic reflection upon the issues of substance which the participating scholars identified and addressed in the course of their investigations. The substantive papers themselves could of course not be presented here, but as well as being submitted to the European Commission as a part of the original Final Report they have been published in two volumes (Evans, D. (ed), 1996, Creating the Child and Conceiving the Embryo) in March 1996, and as such are in the public domain.
