The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Inigo De Miguel Beriain - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Human Dignity and gene editing using Human Dignity as an argument against modifying the Human genome and germline is a logical fallacy
EMBO Reports, 2018Co-Authors: Inigo De Miguel BeriainAbstract:EMBO Reports (2018) 19: e46789[OpenUrl][1][FREE Full Text][2] Human germline editing raises a number of essential ethical issues that have spawned intense debate. According to some bioethical arguments and legal documents, germline modification would threaten Human Dignity, since they consider the Human genome as the physical representation [of Human Dignity]. This article will highlight the inherent contradictions of these arguments and argue that claims that germline editing would violate Human Dignity are invalid. > … respect for Human Dignity should actually support arguments to continue with genetic editing of embryos. The emergence of gene editing technology—particularly CRISPR‐Cas9—and the first experiments to modify the genome of Human embryos have given rise to an intense ethical debate. Such an in‐depth discussion of the potential ethical, societal and medical implications is indeed highly relevant as modifications of the germline would not only affect individual patients or Humans but the Human species as a whole. In fact, the debate began even before the availability of the CRISPS/Cas system when the first gene therapies were developed to cure a few select pathologies. Time has not brought any general agreement, and a universal consensus on whether or not to allow Human germline editing is still remote. ### The debate While some commentators call for a total ban on any form of gene editing that affects the Human germline [1], others advocate for a moratorium until the risks have been sufficiently addressed and resolved [2]. Other authors even claim that germline editing should be considered a moral imperative to improve the Human species [3]. Similar disagreements exist about the ends to which these techniques should be applied. Some consider that only therapeutic purposes are acceptable; others support their use for Human enhancement, a view that many bioethicists and most international declarations and conventions consider as a form … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DEMBO%2BReports%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.15252%252Fembr.201846789%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F30237156%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=embor&resid=19/10/e46789&atom=%2Fembor%2F19%2F10%2Fe46789.atom
-
patentability of time lapse monitoring has nothing to do with Human Dignity a response to alain pottage
Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 2018Co-Authors: Inigo De Miguel Beriain, Begona SanzAbstract:In December 2017, Alain Pottage published an article denying the patentability of a technique called Time-Lapse Monitoring (TLM). His argument was that this procedure, like all other embryo selection procedures, fails to respect Human Dignity. Here, we argue that this statement is mistaken because assisted reproductive technologies (ART) require a scarce resource, namely a woman's uterus in the right physiological condition. Therefore, embryo selection using TLM is entirely appropriate, as it is not possible to guarantee that all of them will have access to the environment they need to develop. Hence, the use of techniques designed to maximize the number of live births and minimize the suffering of women who undergo failed embryo transfers is a moral obligation.
Luis Roberto Barroso - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
here there and everywhere Human Dignity in contemporary law and in the transnational discourse
Social Science Research Network, 2011Co-Authors: Luis Roberto BarrosoAbstract:Over the past several decades, Human Dignity has become an omnipresent idea in contemporary law. This Article surveys the use of Human Dignity by domestic and international courts and describes the concept’s growing role in transnational discourse, with special attention paid to the case law of the United States Supreme Court. The Article then examines the legal nature of Human Dignity, finding it to be a constitutional principle rather than a freestanding fundamental right, and develops a unifying and universal identity for the concept. At its core, Human Dignity contains three elements - intrinsic value, autonomy and community value - and each element has unique legal implications. The Article then considers how this elemental approach to Human Dignity analysis can assist in structuring legal reasoning and justifying judicial choices in hard cases, such as abortion, same-sex marriage and assisted suicide.
-
here there and everywhere Human Dignity in contemporary law and in the transnational discourse
Boston College international and comparative law review, 2011Co-Authors: Luis Roberto BarrosoAbstract:Abstract: Over the past several decades, Human Dignity has become an omnipresent idea in contemporary law. This Article surveys the use of Human Dignity by domestic and international courts and describes the concept's growing role in the transnational discourse, with special attention paid to the case law of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Article examines the legal nature of Human Dignity, finding it to be a constitutional principle rather than a freestanding fundamental right, and develops a unifying and universal identity for the concept. At its core, Human Dignity contains three elements-intrinsic value, autonomy, and community value-and each element has unique legal implications. The Article considers how this elemental approach to the analysis of Human Dignity can assist in structuring legal reasoning and justifying judicial choices in hard cases, such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and assisted suicide.IntroductionIn France, Mr. Wackeneim wanted to participate in a show known as "dwarf tossing," in which nightclub patrons would try to heave a dwarf the furthest distance possible. In the United Kingdom, Mrs. Ev- ans, after losing her ovaries, wanted to insert into her uterus embryos fertilized with her eggs and semen from her ex-husband. In Italy, the family of Mrs. Englaro wanted to suspend medical treatment and let her die peacefully after seventeen years in a vegetative coma. In Brazil, Mr. Ellwanger wanted to publish books denying the existence of the Holocaust. In the United States, Mr. Lawrence wanted to have intimate relations with a same-sex partner without being considered a criminal. In Colombia, Mrs. Lais wanted official recognition of her right to work as a sex professional. In Germany, Mr. Grundgens wanted to prevent the republication of a book based on the life of his father because he considered it offensive to his father's honor. In South Africa, Mrs. Grootboom, living in extremely miserable conditions, wanted the state to provide shelter for her and her family. In France, the young Mr. Per- ruche wanted compensation for being born, or rather, for not being aborted, because a prenatal diagnostic error left unforeseen the severe risk of physical and mental lesions with which he was born.1Each of these scenarios represents real cases decided by high courts throughout the world and share one common trait: the meaning and scope of the idea of Human Dignity. In recent decades, Human dig- nity has become one of the Western world's greatest examples of ethi- cal consensus, mentioned in countless international documents, na- tional constitutions, legal statutes, and judicial decisions.2 In theory at least, few ideas garner such spirited and unanimous concurrence. In practice, however, Dignity as a legal concept frequendy functions mere- ly as a mirror onto which each person projects his or her own values. It is not by chance that Human Dignity is invoked throughout the world by opposing sides in such matters as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, hate speech, cloning, genetic engineering, sex- change operations, prostitution, the decriminalization of drugs, the shooting down of hijacked aircrafts, protection against self-incrimin- ation, the death penalty, life imprisonment, the use of lie detectors, hunger strikes, and the enforcement of social rights. The list is endless.In the United States, references to Human Dignity by the Supreme Court trace back to the 1940s.3 The use of the concept in American law, however, is episodic and underdeveloped,4 relatively incoherent and inconsistent,5 and lacking in sufficient specificity and clarity.6 Despite this history, in recent years a clear and noticeable trend emerged in which courts employ Human Dignity in cases involving fundamental rights, such as the rights to privacy and equal protection, the preven- tion of unconstitutional searches and seizures, the prevention of cruel and unusual punishment, and the "right to die. …
Michael Tonry - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
punishment and Human Dignity sentencing principles for twenty first century america
Crime and Justice, 2018Co-Authors: Michael TonryAbstract:AbstractA new conception of justice in punishment is needed that is premised on respect for offenders’ Human Dignity. It needs to acknowledge retributive and utilitarian values and incorporate inde...
-
punishment and Human Dignity sentencing principles for twenty first century america
Social Science Research Network, 2018Co-Authors: Michael TonryAbstract:A new conception of justice in punishment is needed that is premised on respect for offenders’ Human Dignity. It needs to acknowledge retributive and utilitarian values and incorporate independently important values of fairness and equal treatment. Punishment principles, policies, and practices lined up nicely in mid-twentieth century America. Utilitarian principles implied a primary goal of crime prevention through rehabilitation and avoidance of unnecessary suffering by offenders. Judges and parole boards were empowered to tailor decisions to fit offenders’ circumstances and interests. Corrections officials sought to address rehabilitative needs and facilitate achievement of successful, law-abiding lives. The system often did not work as it should, but its ideals, aspirations, and aims were clear. In our time, there are no commonly shared principles, sentencing laws and practices are unprecedentedly rigid and severe, judges and parole boards often lack authority to make sensible or just decisions, corrections officials are expected simultaneously to act as police officers, actuaries, and social workers, and injustice is ubiquitous.
Javier Orlando Aguirre Roman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
tensions of Human Dignity conceptualization and application to international Human rights law
Social Science Research Network, 2009Co-Authors: Viviana Bohorquez Monsalve, Javier Orlando Aguirre RomanAbstract:This article is the result of the research conducted on “Human Dignity: Philosophical conceptualization and the implementation of law” promoted by the POLITEIA Research Group from the School of Philosophy at the Universidad Industrial de Santander, classified as category B by COLCIENCIAS. This text formulates a three-strand conceptual reconstruction of the concept of Human Dignity: i) the tension between its natural and artificial character (either consensual or positive), ii) the tension between its abstract and concrete character, and iii) the tension between its universal and individual character. First, the main theoretical elements of these tensions are outlined. After that, the tensions are illustrated using four Instruments of International Human Rights Law and five trials by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Finally, conclusions regarding the tensions are presented.
-
tensions of Human Dignity conceptualization and application to international Human rights law
Sur. Revista Internacional De Direitos Humanos, 2009Co-Authors: Viviana Bohorquez Monsalve, Javier Orlando Aguirre RomanAbstract:ABSTRACTThis article is the result of the research conducted on “Human Dignity: Philosophical conceptualization and the implementation of law” promoted by the POLITEIA Research Group from the School of Philosophy at the Universidad Industrial de Santander, classified as category B by COLCIENCIAS. This text formulates a three-strand conceptual reconstruction of the concept of Human Dignity: i) the tension between its natural and artificial character (either consensual or positive), ii) the tension between its abstract and concrete character, and iii) the tension between its universal and individual character. First, the main theoretical elements of these tensions are outlined. After that, the tensions are illustrated using four Instruments of International Human Rights Law and five trials by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Finally, conclusions regarding the tensions are presented.Original in Spanish. Translated by Julie Ciancio.Submitted in June 2009. Accepted in December 2009.KEYWORDSHuman Dignity - Conceptual tensions - International Human rights instruments - Jurisprudence - Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Roberto Andorno - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the dual role of Human Dignity in bioethics
Medicine Health Care and Philosophy, 2013Co-Authors: Roberto AndornoAbstract:This paper argues that some of the misunderstandings surrounding the meaning and function of the concept of Human Dignity in bioethics arise from a lack of distinction between two different roles that this notion plays: one as an overarching policy principle, and the other as a moral standard of patient care. While the former is a very general concept which fulfils a foundational and a guiding role of the normative framework governing biomedical issues, the latter reflects a much more concrete and context-specific understanding of the patient as a “person”. The importance of Dignity as a policy principle will be described by appealing to the distinction between principles and rules as developed by some legal philosophers. The value of Dignity as a standard of patient care will be illustrated with the help of concrete examples and by drawing on the taxonomies of Dignity proposed by Jonathan Mann and other scholars. The overall scope of the article is to highlight this double and complementary role of Human Dignity in bioethics.
-
Human Dignity and Human rights as a common ground for a global bioethics
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 2009Co-Authors: Roberto AndornoAbstract:The principle of respect for Human Dignity plays a crucial role in the emerging global norms relating to bioethics, in particular in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. This instrument, which is a legal, not merely an ethical document, can be regarded as an extension of international Human rights law into the field of biomedicine. Although the Declaration does not explicitly define Human Dignity, it would be a mistake to see the emphasis put on this notion as a mere rhetorical strategy. Rather, the appeal to Dignity reflects a real concern about the need to promote respect both for the intrinsic worth of Human beings and for the integrity of the Human species. But Dignity alone cannot solve most of the dilemmas posed by biomedical practice. This is why international biolaw combines, on the one hand, the appeal to Human Dignity as an overarching principle with, on the other hand, the recourse to Human rights, which provide an effective and practical way forward for dealing with bioethical issues at a global level.
