Search

After analyzing the legal nature of the right not to know, we describe below a case which was conducted in 2015 before the Basque Country Department of Health. This case stands as an example to reflect on the strength of this right, singularly when it clashes with the strict criteria of financing of health care delivery.

Deciphering the human genome has allowed the development of new health care ways which have been generically referred to as genomic medicine. However, this new knowledge is not devoid of risks related to the access and use of genetic information, involving not only the individual, but also the biological family, ethnic group and community to which he/she belong to. This affects both individual and collective rights, which must be protected by law. This manuscript reviews the Colombian law, specifically in terms of the access and use of genetic information for diagnostic and treatment purposes, focusing on the informed consent process. The concept of genetic information, the risks and benefits associated with genetic data management and the description and critical analysis of the present Colombian regulations were thus reviewed. As a conclusion, the juridical framework of Colombia shows deficiencies regarding the protection of both individual and collective rights linked to the access and use of genetic information.

Today, human genetic information is used for commercial purposes as well. This means, based on the case, the direct or indirect commercialization of genetic information. In this study, this specific issue is analyzed in light of the new legal regulations as to the subject in the Turkish Law. Specifically, this study focuses on the issue of whether the commercialization of genetic information is allowed under the Turkish Law. This study also attempts to clarify the issue of whether there is any limitations for the commercialization of genetic information in the Turkish Law provided that the commercialization of genetic information is permitted. Prior to this legal analysis, the problems of the legal ownership for genetic information and of whether genetic information should be considered as an organ of human body is discussed. Accordingly, relevant Turkish laws and regulations are individually analyzed within this context. In the mean time legal regulations of some countries in this respect are taken into account with a comparative approach. In the end a general evaluation and suggestions are provided to the reader.

The UN Inter-Agency Committee on Bioethics met for its tenth meeting at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris on 4-5th March 2011. Member organisations such as the WHO and UNESCO were in attendance alongside associate members such as the Council for Europe, the European Commission, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Trade Organisation. Discussion centred on the theme "genetic privacy and nondiscrimination". The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) had previously considered, from a legal and ethical perspective, the implications of increasingly sophisticated technologies for genetic privacy and non-discrimination in fields such as medicine, employment and insurance. Thus, the ECOSOC requested that UNESCO report on relevant developments in the field of genetic privacy and non-discrimination. In parallel with a consultation process with member states, UNESCO launched a consultation with the UN Interagency Committee on Bioethics. This article analyses the report presented by the author concerning the analysis of the current contentions in the field and illustrates attempts at responding on a normative level to a perceived threat to genetic privacy and non-discrimination.

The continuous advances in our society in the last decades have allowed us to get to know the personal genetic data. Although this discovery has important benefits, it also causes a great paradox, since the genetic information can be an element of social stigma, and its inappropriate use can damage the fundamental rights. It is obvious that there are cases in which the genetic risk, that is, the predisposition of a person to suffer some illnesses, can be a discriminatory element, especially in the contractual field.

This article is based in three ideas, namely: 1. All the questions in the field of "privacy" and "confidentiality" derived from genetic tests only must be taken into account if we deal with "personal data". 2. When we are dealing with personal genetic data, two aspects must be especially guaranteed: a) the freedom and autonomy of the individual; and b) the duty of secrecy in order to protect the privacy of the person. 3. Some conflicts can appear between these two aspects and we have to deal with them. The author analyses the supranational European legislation referring to this topic, according to with, genetic privacy must be guarantee. He also notes how Genetic medicine can give rise to a variety of conflicts of interests, and points out how the different legal texts object of study deal with this issue.

The authors examine the two main attitudes toward genetics: Exceptionalism and Undervaluation. They firstly pose the basis of the matter from the scientific point of view and then verify how these two attitudes really work in the different fields where human genetics finds relevant applications, dealing with the questions arising from the unique characteristics of genetic data that is shared among the whole bio-group. Then some judicial cases related to the conflicts arising when genetic data are stored in repositories, whatever the aims and reasons, are presented and discussed. The matter is then considered from the criminal law perspective, in the light of the new possible implications of DNA fingerprinting in criminal investigations. Finally, some general considerations on opposing Exceptionalism/Undervaluation viewpoints and the real reason for making up new rules are presented.

This work deals with those conflict situations that arise between the duty of secrecy by health professionals and the interest in safekeeping the life and physical integrity of third parties when dealing with behaviours by the patient, whether intentional or not, that could harm or place in danger those legal goods. The special situations of conflict that could arise in the ambit of genetic diagnosis are dealt as a special problem.

In this research, Professor Jürgen Simon and Christian Ravenstein have highlighted the general existing prohibition, in the labour field, of the undertaking of genetic tests that could mean discrimination for the genetic heritage of the worker. They have made a comparative study of several member States of the EU that have specific regulation on this area.

The new knowledge (and predictions) created by DNA tests and the family nature of genetic information has already lead to a new problem: the intra-familiar communication of genetic data. This raises questions such as the following. Is there a duty to inform in cases when treatment is possible and the patient does not permit disclosure of genetic results to relatives? Is there an obligation to warn or merely an authorization (that could be used or not)? Could privacy protection be maintain as an individual interest but with some justified violations? A balance needs to be establishes between the interest of privacy and the need to disclose secret information.

In the second part the author examines the repercussions of constitutional case law on the legal protection of genetic information. He then considers the special nature of genetic information and addresses the corresponding need for special treatment thereof in law. A specific model is suggested for the legal status of such information. This model is based on the Spanish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. The article then casts a critical eye over data protection legislation in Spain (in particular Law 15/1999 of 13 December) concentrating on five principles, four of which are substantive and the fifth procedural: 1) consent; 2) purpose; 3) confidentiality; 4) quality; 5) proportionality. Lastly, the article gives examples of areas in which the model might be applied (for instance in employment contracts, insurance, access to information by family members).

From the right to privacy there derives a right to genetic privacy to protect individuals from some of the potential threats that may arise with respect to advances in Biology. Here we look at the basis for the proposed concept of the right to genetic privacy and examine issues concerning the legal nature, the active and passive subjects, the limitations and guarantees of this right.