The Development of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing: Some Legal and Ethical Questions

Authors: Brownsword, R. and Wale, J.

Editors: Prof. Dr. Joerden, J.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23815/

Journal: Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik (Annual Review of Law and Ethics)

Volume: Band 24 (2016)

Pages: 31-48

Publisher: Duncker and Humbolt

ISSN: 0944-4610

In this paper, we examine the claimed rights to know and not to know against a back drop of non-invasive prenatal testing. In the first part, the general plausibility of a claimed right to know and right not to know is considered; in the second, with a view to developing an improved understanding of these rights, a number of responses and counter-responses to those who advance such claims are explored; in the third, the possible relevance to these issues of recent medical law jurisprudence in the United Kingdom—particularly, the landmark decision of the UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board—is assessed; and, in the fourth, we consider how far a ‘right to know’ might be constrained by a ‘lawful and proper purpose’ proviso.

The data on this page was last updated at 05:10 on February 17, 2020.