An increasing number of scientists and doctors are concerned that new laws are inhibiting ethical research. This paper argues that this is not the case. Laws do not inhibit medical progress. Misunderstanding the law may do so.
References
1.
ShakespeareWilliam. King Henry VI Part II Act 4, Sc2.
2.
BurkeEdmund. Second speech, Conciliation with America, March 22, 1775.
3.
Data Protection Act, 1998.
4.
Human Tissue Act, 2004.
5.
FurnessP. Consent to using human tissue: implied consent should sufficeBMJ2003; 327: 759–60.
6.
Though note the decision of the Court of Appeal in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department. 2004 E.W.C.A. (Civ) 1123 on the admissibility of evidence obtained by torture abroad. This point was not addressed by the Law Lords 2005 3 All E. R. 169. HL.
7.
See The Times January 6 2005; The Independent May 23 2005.
8.
B v An NHS Trust. 2002. 2 All E.R. 449.
9.
TallisR. Hippocratic oaths: medicine and its discontents. Atlantic Books2004.
10.
O'NeillO. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge University Press2002.
11.
Cole v Turner. 1704. 87 English Reports 907.
12.
BrazierM. Human tissue retention. Medico-Legal J2004; 72: 39–52.
13.
Human tissue and biological samples for use in research: operational and ethical guidance. Medical Research Council2001.
14.
HarrisJ. Law and regulation of retained organs: the ethical issues. Legal Studies2002; 22: 527–549.
15.
BrazierM. Retained organs: ethics and humanity. Legal Studies2002; 22: 550–569.
16.
MorrisonD. A holistic approach to clinical and ethical decision-making: lessons from the UK organ retention scandals. Med L Rev2005; 13: 45–79.
17.
Removal and retention of human material. Bristol Interim Inquiry Report at paragraph 33.
