Abstract
This paper considers whether existing law could potentially be used to criminalize the transmission of genetic disease. The paper argues that even if an offence could be made out, the criminal law should not be involved in this context for many reasons, including the need to protect reproductive liberty and pregnant women’s rights. The paper also examines whether there might be scope for civil claims between reproductive partners for a ‘failure to warn’ of potential genetic harm and argues there are strong policy grounds for resisting such claims. If such a duty were to exist, there might, in the future, be scope for a child to bring a claim under the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability Act) 1976. Such a claim could be for the failure by the child’s father to warn her mother, which in turn led to the loss of opportunity to have treatment in utero which could have prevented the disability. It is suggested that the same arguments which supported granting maternal immunity under the Act would also support paternal immunity and that, therefore the issue of the lack of paternal immunity under the Act should be revisited.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Eg Golding [58], where the court considered the evidence of expert virologists.
A Supreme Court decision overturning the Court of Appeal’s judgment seems unlikely, particularly given additional concerns raised about the prosecution case—such as the lack of coincidence in the mens rea and actus rea: see paras 40–45, per Lord Treacy.
See the test from Bateman [55], cited by Lord Mackay in Adomako [54]: ‘in order to establish criminal liability the facts must be such that, in the opinion of the jury, the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment’.
As Margaret Brazier has written: ‘If as a society we recognise that every human being is entitled to protection of those basic interests which constitute a decent life, the children we plan to bear or beget enjoy just the same entitlements. If potential disability or disadvantage significantly impairs a child’s prospects of enjoying a life free from degrading treatment, free from acute pain and suffering of mind or body, endowed with dignity and protected by security of his person, a choice to bring him into the world regardless is morally questionable’. [3 at 373]
See also the recent amendment to s. 1 Children and Young Persons Act 1933 following the Serious Crime Act 2015 [69] which has created a criminal offence where a person with responsibility for a child under 16 causes that child psychological harm.
This was legislation brought in following the tragedy when children were born suffering disabilities after their mothers had been prescribed the drug thalidomide. The legislation was designed to fill a gap in the law and clarify whether there could be civil liability in respect of pre-natal fault which led to post-natal injury [38].
See also Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [53].
For a discussion of the potential for a ‘blockbuster’ tort for genomic grievances, see Brownsword [4].
A recent case which examined whether a duty of care should exist is ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust [46]. In that case it was determined that there was no duty for a hospital to advise a woman that her father had Huntington’s disease.
Subject, of course, to being able to prove that causation could be established.
References
Ashworth, A. (2000). Is the criminal law a lost cause? Law Quarterly Review, 116, 225–256.
Brazier, M. (1997). Parental responsibilities, foetal welfare and children’s health. In C. Bridge (Ed.), Family law towards the millennium: Essays for PM Bromley (pp. 263–293). London: Butterworths.
Brazier, M. (1999). Liberty, responsibility, maternity. CLP, 52(1), 359–373.
Brownsword, R. (2003). An interest in human dignity as the basis for genomic torts. Washburn Law Journal, 42, 413–487.
Cave, E. (2004). The mother of all crimes: human rights, criminalization and the child born alive. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Cave, E., & Stanton, C. (2015). Maternal responsibility to the child not yet born. In C. Stanton, S. Devaney, A.-M. Farrell, & A. Mullock (Eds.), Pioneering healthcare law: Essays in honour of Margaret Brazier. Abingdon: Routledge (to be published).
Criminal injuries compensation authority. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/criminal-injuries-compensation-authority. Accessed 23 June 2014.
Crown prosecution service. Policy for prosecuting cases involving the intentional or reckless sexual transmission of infection. https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/sti.html. Accessed 23 June 2014.
Crown Prosecution Service. (2009). A review of the CPS policy and guidance to prosecutors on the sexual transmission of infection—One year on. http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/sti_one_year_on.html. Accessed 23 June 2014.
Crown prosecution service. Legal guidance: Intentional or reckless transmission of infection. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/intentional_or_reckless_sexual_transmission_of_infection_guidance/index.html. Accessed 23 June 2014.
Coutelle, C., & Ashcroft, R. (2012). Risks, benefits and ethical, legal and societal considerations for translation of prenatal gene therapy to human application. In C. Coutelle & S. Waddington (Eds.), Prenatal gene therapy: Concepts, methods and protocols (pp. 371–387). New York: Humana Press.
Davies, S. (2013). The drugs don’t work: A global threat. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Dodds, C., Weait, M., Bourne, A., et al. (2013). Keeping confidence: HIV and the criminal law from service provider perspectives. London: Sigma Research.
Fovargue, S., & Miola, J. (1998). Policing pregnancy: Implications of the Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 3 of 1994). Medical Law Review, 6, 265–296.
Glover, J. (1998). Eugenics: Some lessons from the Nazi experience. In J. Harris & S. Holm (Eds.), The future of human reproduction: ethics, choice and regulation (pp. 57–65). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Götherström, C., Westgrem, M., Shaw, S. W., et al. (2014). Pre- and post natal transplantation of fetal mesenchymal stem cells in osteogenesis imperfect: A two-center experience. Stem Cells Translational Medicine, 3(2), 255–264.
Health protection agency, HIV in the United Kingdom: 2012 Report. http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/InfectiousDiseases/HIVAndSTIs/1211HIVintheUK2012/. Accessed 24 March 2014.
Home Office (2008) Violence: Reforming the Offences Against the Person Act 1891 http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/offences-against-the-person.htm. Accessed 23 June 2014.
Honoré, T. (1995). The morality of Tort law. In D. Owen (Ed.), Philosophical foundations of Tort law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. PGD conditions licensed by the HFEA. http://guide.hfea.gov.uk/pgd/. Accessed 25 June 2014.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Your legal responsibilities as a sperm, egg or embryo donor. http://www.hfea.gov.uk/1972.html. Accessed 20 March 2014.
Husak, D. (1995). The Nature and justifiability of non-commensurate offences. Arizona Law Review, 37(151), 155.
Jackson, E. (2013). Medical law: Text, cases and materials (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jareborg, N. (2004–2005). Criminalisation as last resort (Ultima Ratio). Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 2, 521–534.
Kennedy, I., & Grubb, A. (2000). Medical law (3rd ed.). London: Butterworths.
Law commission, offences against the person. http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/offences-against-the-person.htm. Accessed 23 June 2014.
Law Commission. (1974). Report on injuries to unborn children (London: HMSO) 1974 Cmnd 5709, paras. 53–64.
Mawhinney, G. (2013). To be ill or to kill: The criminality of contagion. Journal of Criminal Law, 77(3), 202.
National Gamete Donation Trust. Become an egg donor’ and ‘become a sperm donor. Available at. www.ngdt.co.uk/becoming-a-donor. Accessed 25 June 2014.
National Health Service. National Genetics and Genomics Education Centre. Inherited breast cancer. http://www.geneticseducation.nhs.uk/genetic-conditions-54/678-inherited-breast-cancer-new. Accessed 23 June 2014.
NHS Choices. Cystic fibrosis. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cystic-fibrosis/Pages/Introduction.aspx. Accessed 3 August 2015.
NHS Choices. Huntington’s disease. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Huntingtons-disease/Pages/Introduction.aspx. Accessed 23 June 2014.
NHS Choices. Tay sachs disease. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Tay-Sachs-disease/Pages/Introduction.aspx. Accessed 23 June 2014.
NHS Choices. Muscular dystrophy. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Muscular-dystrophy/Pages/Introduction.aspx. Accessed 24 March 2014.
O’Byrne, P., Bryan, A., & Roy, M. (2013). HIV criminal prosecutions and public health: an examination of the empirical research. Medical Humanities, 39, 85–90.
Ormerod, D. (2001). Criminalizing HIV transmission—Still no effective solutions. Common Law World Review, 30(2), 135.
Ormerod, D. (2011). Smith and Hogan’s criminal law (13th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pace, P. J. (1977). Civil liability for Pre-natal Injuries. Modern Law Review, 40(2), 141–158.
Robertson, J. (1994). Children of choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
St. Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. The PGD treatment cycle. http://www.pgd.org.uk/what-is-pgd/stages/stages.aspx. Accessed 23 June 2014.
Scaefer, L. (2008). Marrying an in-law? The future of prohibited degrees of affinity and consanguinity in English law. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 20(2), 219–229.
Stanton, C. (2015). Maternal transmission of HIV infection: A crime against my child? Journal of Medical Ethics, 41, 375–378.
Stanton, C. (2008). Ph.D. thesis (unpublished). Genetic information, autonomy and the family.
Stauch, M. (2001). Pregnancy and the Human Rights Act 1998. In A. Garwood-Gowers, J. Tingle, & T. Lewis (Eds.), Healthcare law: The Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 (pp. 259–271). London: Cavendish.
Weait, M. (2011). Pass on herpes, go to jail? The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/19/jail-herpes-sexually-transmitted-infection. Accessed 23 June 2014.
Cases
ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC 1394 (QB).
Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) [1997] 3 All ER 936.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.
Chester v Afshar [2005] 1 AC 134.
CICA v FTT and CP (CIC) [2013] UKUT 638 (AAC) (18 December 2013).
CP (A Child) v First-tier Tribunal (Criminal Injuries Compensation) [2014] EWCA Civ 1554.
McKay and another v Essex Area Health Authority and Another [1982] 1 QB 1166.
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11.
R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171.
R v Bateman (1927) 19 Cr. App. R. 8.
R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396.
R v G and another [2003] UKHL 50.
R v Golding [2014] EWCA Crim 889.
R v Konzani [2005] EWCA Crim 706; [2005] 2 Cr. App.R.14.
Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000] 1 AC 360.
St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S [1998] 3 WLR 936.
Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923.
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman [1955-95] PNLR 238.
Wood (1830) 1 Mood CC 278.
Legislation
Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976, as amended.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended.
Marriage Act 1836, now Marriage Act 1949.
Serious Crime Act 2015.
Acknowledgments
This paper was initially presented in Prato, Italy in April 2014 during a conference which formed part of the iSEI Wellcome Strategic Programme in The Human Body: Its scope, limits and future (Grant Number: WT 087439/Z/08/Z). I would like to acknowledge with gratitude the support of Wellcome in funding that event and thank the participants for their comments on my paper. I would also like to thank Margot Brazier, Alex Mullock and the two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on earlier drafts. Any errors in the paper are mine.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stanton, C. Genetic Transmission of Disease: A Legal Harm?. Health Care Anal 24, 228–245 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-015-0306-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-015-0306-y