Governing the post mortem procurement of human body material for research

Human body material removed post mortem is a particularly valuable resource for research. Considering the efforts that are currently being made to study the biochemical processes and possible genetic causes that underlie cancer and cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases, it is likely that this type of research will continue to gain in importance. However, post mortem procurement of human body material for research raises specific ethical concerns, more in particular with regard to the consent of the research participant. In this paper, we attempt to determine which consent regime should govern the post mortem procurement of body material for research. In order to do so, we assess the various arguments that could be put forward in support of a duty to make body material available for research purposes after death. We argue that this duty does in practice not support conscription but is sufficiently strong to defend a policy of presumed rather than explicit consent

Lifespan extension and the doctrine of double effect

Recent developments in biogerontology—the study of the biology of ageing—suggest that it may eventually be possible to intervene in the human ageing process. This, in turn, offers the prospect of significantly postponing the onset of age-related diseases. The biogerontological project, however, has met with strong resistance, especially by deontologists. They consider the act of intervening in the ageing process impermissible on the grounds that it would (most probably) bring about an extended maximum lifespan—a state of affairs that they deem intrinsically bad. In a bid to convince their deontological opponents of the permissibility of this act, proponents of biogerontology invoke an argument which is grounded in the doctrine of double effect. Surprisingly, their argument, which we refer to as the ‘double effect argument’, has gone unnoticed. This article exposes and critically evaluates this ‘double effect argument’. To this end, we first review a series of excerpts from the ethical debate on biogerontology in order to substantiate the presence of double effect reasoning. Next, we attempt to determine the role that the ‘double effect argument’ is meant to fulfil within this debate. Finally, we assess whether the act of intervening in ageing actually can be justified using double effect reasoning

La prueba pericial y los peritos. Desde Roma a la realidad jurídica actual

La prueba pericial existe desde el Derecho Romano, y en la actualidad ha cobrado una inusitada importancia. En el presente proyecto se busca como primer objetivo narrar su evolución tanto espacial como temporal. Y el segundo objetivo fincaría en proponer reglas claraas que sirvan a la vez como elemento de instrucción social y asimismo como base para un reordenamiento jurídico.Fil: Ghirardi, Juan Carlos. Universidad Católica de Córdoba. Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales; ArgentinaFil: Filippi, María Cristina. Universidad Católica de Córdoba. Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales; Argentin

Pediatric priority in kidney allocation: challenging its acceptability

Any organ which is allocated to one individual represents a missed opportunity for someone else. Given the important repercussions which organ allocation policies inevitably have for certain people, any prioritization policy should rest on a solid argumentative basis. In this study, we analyze the widespread practice of prioritizing pediatric patients in the allocation of kidneys. While official policy documents offer no arguments in support of pediatric priority, such arguments can be found in the academic literature on pediatric renal transplantation. Our study is the first to bring together and critically analyze these. We identify five commonly cited arguments and show that none of these succeeds in justifying pediatric priority policies. We argue that the legitimacy of such policies may be further undermined by their potential adverse effects on both adults and children