Gender injustice in compensating injury to autonomy in English and Singaporean negligence law

The extent to which English law remedies injury to autonomy (ITA) as a stand-alone actionable damage in negligence is disputed. In this article I argue that the remedy available is not only partial and inconsistent (Keren-Paz in Med Law Rev, 2018) but also gendered and discriminatory against women. I first situate the argument within the broader feminist critique of tort law as failing to appropriately remedy gendered harms, and of law more broadly as undervaluing women’s interest in reproductive autonomy. I then show by reference to English remedies law’s first principles how imposed motherhood cases—Rees v Darlington and its predecessor McFarlane v Tayside Health Board—result in gender injustice when compared with other autonomy cases such as Chester v Afshar and Yearworth v North Bristol NHS Trust: A minor gender-neutral ITA is better remedied than the significant gendered harm of imposing motherhood on the claimant; men’s reproductive autonomy is protected to a greater extent than women’s; women’s reproductive autonomy is protected by an exceptional, derisory award. Worst of all, courts refuse to recognise imposed motherhood as detriment; and the deemed, mansplained, nonpecuniary joys of motherhood are used to offset pecuniary upkeep costs, forcing the claimant into a position she sought to avoid and thus further undermining her autonomy. The recent Singaporean case ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd, awarding compensation for undermining the claimant’s genetic affinity in an IVF wrong-sperm-mix-up demonstrates some improvement in comparison to English law, and some shared gender injustices in the context of reproductive autonomy. ACB’s analysis is oblivious to the nature of reproductive autonomy harm as gendered; and prioritises the father’s interest in having genetic affinity with the baby over a woman’s interest in not having motherhood imposed upon her

Strategic focus on 3R principles reveals major reductions in the use of animals in pharmaceutical toxicity testing.

The principles of the 3Rs, Replacement, Reduction and Refinement, are being increasingly incorporated into legislations, guidelines and practice of animal experiments in order to safeguard animal welfare. In the present study we have studied the systematic application of 3R principles to toxicological research in the pharmaceutical industry, with particular focus on achieving reductions in animal numbers used in regulatory and investigatory in vivo studies. The work also details major factors influencing these reductions including the conception of ideas, cross-departmental working and acceptance into the work process. Data from 36 reduction projects were collected retrospectively from work between 2006 and 2010. Substantial reduction in animal use was achieved by different strategies, including improved study design, method development and project coordination. Major animal savings were shown in both regulatory and investigative safety studies. If a similar (i.e. 53%) reduction had been achieved simultaneously within the twelve largest pharmaceutical companies, the equivalent reduction world-wide would be about 150,000 rats annually. The results point at the importance of a strong 3R culture, with scientific engagement, collaboration and a responsive management being vital components. A strong commitment in leadership for the 3R is recommended to be translated into cross-department and inter-profession involvement in projects for innovation, validation and implementation. Synergies between all the three Rs are observed and conclude that in silico-, in vitro- and in vivo-methods all hold the potential for applying the reduction R and should be consequently coordinated at a strategic level

Projects related to development of new methods, the reduction per study and estimated annual reduction.

<p>NA = Not analysed</p><p>a) Not possible to estimate as the test/study is performed when requested and this varies substantially between years.</p><p>b) Not possible to estimate the effects on reduction of animal use or replacement of animal studies today.</p><p>c) Not possible to estimate as the number of biomarker studies and study design varies depending on present drug projects and safety assessment issues. Probably a reduction of more than one hundred animals per year. To be evaluated after 2–3 years.</p><p>d) Possible risk for interference with observations of clinical signs is addressed and during scientifically investigation and evaluation before implementing the method as default.</p

Projects linked to the department ownership (a) or the participation (b) of each project.

<p>The number of projects specified according to category of the project (a) and specified in relation to the participation in projects with multiple or single departments (b).</p

Projects related to improvements in study design, the reduction per study and estimated annual reduction.

<p>NA = Not analysed</p><p>a) Not possible to estimate as the routine was implemented just before the end of the investigated period.</p><p>b) Not possible to estimate as the design and number of investigative studies varies a lot between years. To be evaluated after 2–3 years.</p

Total number of rats used in toxicity studies at the Safety Assessment Research Unit (black line) and total number of reported regulatory toxicity studies, one month or longer (black bars) and shorter investigative toxicity/mechanistic studies (grey bars) during the years 2006–2010.

<p>Total number of rats used in toxicity studies at the Safety Assessment Research Unit (black line) and total number of reported regulatory toxicity studies, one month or longer (black bars) and shorter investigative toxicity/mechanistic studies (grey bars) during the years 2006–2010.</p