Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Boundaries of Embryo Research: Extending the Fourteen-Day Rule

Australasian Association of Bioethics and Health Law John McPhee (Law) Student Essay Prize 2018

  • Critical Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The disciplines of ethics, science, and the law often conflict when it comes to determining the limits and boundaries of embryo research. Under current Australian law and regulations, and in various other jurisdictions, research conducted on the embryo in vitro is permitted up until day fourteen, after which, the embryo must be destroyed. Reproductive technology and associated research is rapidly advancing at a rate that contests current societal and ethical limits surrounding the treatment of the embryo. This has brought about the question of the adequacy of the fourteen-day rule and whether it is necessary for it be reconsidered and reformed. This paper will highlight some of the tensions that exist in ethics, science, and the law in relation to the extension of the rule. It will be concluded that any move to extend the rule must be accompanied by close consultation with the public as the ultimate stakeholders in how the future of reproductive technology is created, constructed, and contested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See for example, Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 20 and R v Hutty [1953] VLR 338, 339.

  2. Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 4 and 42; Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 43 and 48A; Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 313(1); Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 15; Criminal Code 1924 (Tas) s 184A.

  3. Watt v Rama [1972] V.R. 353.

References

  • Buxon, J. 2017. Comment: What’s so special about the status of the embryo? BioNews 886: January, 30.

  • Cavaliere, G. 2017. A 14-day limit for bioethics: the debate over human embryo research. BMC Medical Ethics 18(1): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Lacey, S. 2017. Death in the clinic: Women’s perceptions and experiences of discarding supernumerary IVF embryos. Sociology of Health and Illness 39(3): 397–411.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Lacey, S., W. Rogers, A. Braunack-Mayer, J. Avery, D. Smith, and B. Richards. 2012. Perceptions of embryo status and embryo use in an Australian community. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 24(7): 727–744.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deglincerti, A., G.F. Croft, L.N. Pietila, M. Zernicka-Goetz, E.D. Siggia, and A.H. Brivanlou. 2016. Self-organization of the in vitro attached human embryo. Nature 533(7602): 251.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health and Social Security. 1984. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haimes, E., and K. Taylor. 2009. Fresh embryo donation for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research: The experiences and values of IVF couples asked to be embryo donors. Human Reproduction 24(9): 2142–2150.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Herbrand, C. 2016. Comment: The Warnock Report and the 14-day rule. BioNews 882: December 19.

  • Hyun, I., A. Wilkerson, and J. Johnson. 2016. Revisit the 14-day rule. Nature 533(7602): 169–171

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Stem Cell Research. 2016. Guidelines for stem cell research and clinical translation. http://www.isscr.org/docs/default-source/all-isscr-guidelines/guidelines-2016/isscr-guidelines-for-stem-cell-research-and-clinical-translation.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed December 10, 2018.

  • IVF Australia. 2011. Female infertility and assisted reproduction. Merck Serono Australia Pty Ltd.

  • Jones, D. 2016. The injustice of destroying embryonic human beings. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Progress Educational Trust, Rethinking the ethics of embryo research: Genome editing, 14 days and beyond, London, December 7.

  • Legislation Review Committee. 2005. Legislation review: Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. Parliament of Australia.

  • Millbank, J. 2013. Frozen in time, clarifying laws on IVF and embryo destruction. The Conversation, January 21.

  • National Health and Medical Research Council. 2017. Ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology in clinical practice and research. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, ISBN 9781925129809.

  • ———. 2015. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

  • Noventa, M., A. Andrisani, S. Gizzo, G.B. Nardelli, and G. Ambrosini. 2014. Is it time to shift the attention on early stages embryo development to avoid inconclusive evidence on HPV-related infertility: Debate and proposal. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 12(1): 48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Shahbazi, M.N., A. Jedrusik, S. Vuoristo, et al. 2016. Self-organization of the human embryo in the absence of maternal tissues. Nature: Cell Biology 18: 700–708.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shaikly, V. 2016. Comment: The 14-day rule: calling time on embryo research. BioNews, December 7.

  • Walsh, A. 2015. The legal status of prenatal life in Australia. Postgraduate Thesis, University of Sydney, Australia.

  • Warnock, M. 1984. Scientific research must have a moral basis. New Scientist 104(1430): 36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caitlin Davis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davis, C. The Boundaries of Embryo Research: Extending the Fourteen-Day Rule. Bioethical Inquiry 16, 133–140 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-018-09895-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-018-09895-w

Keywords

Navigation