Dr Andrew McGee, Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law, has delivered a thought provoking new paper on the importance of the therapy v enhancement distinction in regulation germline genome editing. This paper has now been published in the leading bioethics journal.
In a first major study, the UK’s Royal Society found that 76% of people in the UK are in favour of therapeutic germline genomic editing to correct genetic diseases in human embryos, but found there was little appetite for germline genomic editing for non-therapeutic purposes. Assuming the UK (and other governments) acted on these findings, can lawmakers and policymakers coherently regulate the use of biomedical innovations by permitting their use for therapeutic purposes but prohibiting their use for enhancement purposes?
In his paper, Andrew examines the very common claim that the therapy v enhancement distinction does little meaningful work in helping us think through the ethical issues. This claim has significant implications for lawmakers and policymakers who may wish to regulate genomic editing techniques to reflect the findings of this important study.
You can read Andrew’s paper, Using the therapy and enhancement distinction in law and policy, in the bioethics journal.
About Andrew McGee
Andrew is an Associate Professor in the School of Law and is an active member of the Australian Centre for Health Law Research. He has published articles in leading international medical law and ethics journals on palliative care, withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging measures and euthanasia, organ donation, and the ethics of abortion.
You can learn more about Andrew and his research and publications in his staff profile.
