Harvard Law School Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics.
Cornell Law Rev. 2012 Sep;97(6):1309-98.
Under what circumstances should a citizen be able to avoid the penalties set by the citizen's home country's criminal law by going abroad to engage in the same activity where it is not criminally prohibited? Should we view the ability to engage in prohibited activities by traveling outside of the nation state as a way of accommodating cultural or political differences within our polity? These are general questions regarding the power and theory of extraterritorial application of domestic criminal law. In this Article, I examine the issues through a close exploration of one setting that urgently presents them: medical tourism. Medical tourism is a term used to describe the travel of patients who are citizens and residents of one country, the "home country," to another country, the "destination country," for medical treatment. This Article is the first to comprehensively examine a subcategory of medical tourism that I call "circumvention tourism," which involves patients who travel abroad for services that are legal in the patient's destination country but illegal in the patient's home country--that is, travel to circumvent domestic prohibitions on accessing certain medical services. The four examples of this phenomenon that I dwell on are circumvention medical tourism for female genital cutting (FGC), abortion, reproductive technology usage, and assisted suicide. I will briefly discuss the "can" question: assuming that a domestic prohibition on access to one of these services is lawful, as a matter of international law, is the home country forbidden, permitted, or mandated to extend its existing criminal prohibition extraterritorially to home country citizens who travel abroad to circumvent the home country's prohibition? Most of the Article, though, is devoted to the "ought" question: assuming that the domestic prohibition is viewed as normatively well-grounded, under what circumstances should the home country extend its existing criminal prohibition extraterritorially to its citizens who travel abroad to circumvent the prohibition? I show that, contrary to much of current practice, in most instances, home countries should seek to extend extraterritorially their criminal prohibitions on FGC, abortion, assisted suicide, and, to a lesser extent, reproductive technology use to their citizens who travel abroad to circumvent the prohibition. I also discuss the ways in which my analysis of these prohibitions can serve as scaffolding for a more general theory of circumvention tourism.
在什么情况下,公民出国从事在本国不被刑事禁止的活动时,能够避免本国刑法规定的处罚?我们是否应该将在民族国家之外从事被禁止的活动的能力视为在我们的政治体中容纳文化或政治差异的一种方式?这些是关于国内刑法的域外适用的权力和理论的一般问题。在本文中,我通过仔细探讨一个紧迫提出这些问题的背景来研究这些问题:医疗旅游。医疗旅游是一个术语,用于描述一个国家(“母国”)的公民和居民前往另一个国家(“目的地国”)就医的旅行。本文是第一篇全面研究我所称的“规避旅游”的医疗旅游的子类别,该旅游涉及因出国旅行而前往目的地国家合法但在患者母国非法的服务的患者,即旅行以规避国内对获取某些医疗服务的禁令。我详细探讨的这种现象的四个例子是为女性生殖器切割(FGC)、堕胎、生殖技术使用和协助自杀而进行的规避医疗旅游。我将简要讨论“能够”问题:假设对获取其中一项服务的国内禁令是合法的,根据国际法,母国是否被禁止、允许或要求将其现有的刑事禁令扩大到出国规避母国禁令的本国公民?尽管如此,本文的大部分内容还是致力于“应该”问题:假设国内禁令被视为在规范上有充分依据,在什么情况下,母国应该将其现有的刑事禁令扩大到出国规避禁令的本国公民?我表明,与当前的大多数做法相反,在大多数情况下,母国应该寻求将其对出国规避禁令的公民的 FGC、堕胎、协助自杀以及在较小程度上的生殖技术使用的刑事禁令扩大到境外。我还讨论了我的这些禁令分析如何为更广泛的规避旅游理论提供基础。