The Parliamentary Inquiry into Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve’s Law) Bill 2021 in Australia: A Qualitative Analysis

被引:0
|
作者
Jemima W. Allen
Christopher Gyngell
Julian J. Koplin
Danya F. Vears
机构
[1] Monash University,Department of Paediatrics
[2] Biomedical Ethics Research Group,Department of Public Health and Primary Care
[3] Murdoch Children’s Research Institute,undefined
[4] University of Melbourne,undefined
[5] Melbourne Law School,undefined
[6] University of Melbourne,undefined
[7] Center for Biomedical Ethics and Law,undefined
来源
关键词
Bioethics; Mitochondrial donation; Gene technology; Gene technology regulation; Technological and regulatory advances; Medical technology legislation;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Recently, Australia became the second jurisdiction worldwide to legalize the use of mitochondrial donation technology. The Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve’s Law) Bill 2021 allows individuals with a family history of mitochondrial disease to access assisted reproductive techniques that prevent the inheritance of mitochondrial disease. Using inductive content analysis, we assessed submissions sent to the Senate Committee as part of a programme of scientific inquiry and public consultation that informed drafting of the Bill. These submissions discussed a range of bioethical and legal considerations of central importance to the political debate. Significantly, submissions from those with a first-hand experience of mitochondrial disease, including clinicians and those with a family history of mitochondrial disease, were in strong support of this legislation. Those in support of the Bill commended the two-staged approach and rigorous licencing requirements as part of the Bill’s implementation strategy. Submissions which outlined arguments against the legislation either opposed the use of these techniques in general or opposed aspects of the implementation strategy in Australia. These findings offer a window into the ethical arguments and perspectives that matter most to those Australians who took part in the Senate inquiry into mitochondrial donation. The insights garnered from these submissions may be used to help refine policy and guidelines as the field progresses.
引用
收藏
页码:67 / 80
页数:13
相关论文
共 37 条
  • [1] The Parliamentary Inquiry into Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve's Law) Bill 2021 in Australia: A Qualitative Analysis
    Allen, Jemima W.
    Gyngell, Christopher
    Koplin, Julian J.
    Vears, Danya F.
    JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY, 2024, 21 (01) : 67 - 80
  • [2] Potential law reform for Australia's organ donation system
    Halls, Alexandra
    JOURNAL OF LAW AND MEDICINE, 2012, 20 (02) : 306 - 319
  • [3] Implications of Law's Response to Mitochondrial Donation
    Ludlow, Karinne
    LAWS, 2024, 13 (02)
  • [4] Opening Pathways to Restorative Justice: Analysis of Parliamentary Debates on Sex Crime Law Reform in Victoria, Australia
    Gang, Daye
    Loff, Bebe
    Naylor, Bronwyn
    Kirkman, Maggie
    SOCIAL POLITICS, 2022, 29 (02): : 658 - 681
  • [5] SEXUAL ASSAULT LAW REFORM IN COLORADO - ANALYSIS OF HOUSE BILL 1042
    SCHNEIDER, EL
    DENVER LAW JOURNAL, 1976, 53 (02): : 349 - 386
  • [6] Lord Lester outlines his private member's bill to reform libel law
    Dyer, Clare
    BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2010, 340
  • [7] Practitioners' experiences with 2021 amendments to Canada's medical assistance in dying law: a qualitative analysis
    Close, Eliana
    Downie, Jocelyn
    White, Ben P.
    PALLIATIVE CARE & SOCIAL PRACTICE, 2023, 17
  • [8] Neutral Masculinity: An Analysis of Parliamentary Debates on Austria's Neutrality Law
    Loeffler, Marion
    MEN AND MASCULINITIES, 2019, 22 (03) : 444 - 464
  • [9] Corporate law reform in Australia: An analysis of the influence of ownership structures and corporate failure
    Chen, Vivien
    Ramsay, Ian
    Welsh, Michelle
    AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS LAW REVIEW, 2016, 44 (01): : 18 - 34
  • [10] New Zealand's Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill: a viable approach to drug law reform
    Boden, Joseph M.
    AUSTRALIAN HEALTH REVIEW, 2020, 44 (06) : 818 - 818