Jowitt Joshua
Newcastle Law School, 19-24 Windsor Terrace, Newcastle upon TyneNE1 7RU, UK.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2023 Feb 17:1-10. doi: 10.1017/S0963180122000858.
This paper will ask whether the legal status presently afforded to nonhuman animals ought to influence regulatory debates concerning human cerebral organoids. The New York Courts recently refused to grant a writ of habeas corpus to Happy the Elephant as she was property rather than a legal person while at the same time accepting that she is a moral patient deserving of rights protection. An undesirable situation has therefore arisen in which the law holds a being with moral status to be incapable of benefitting from legal redress due to their legal status as property.The author argues that this is something that we ought to avoid when designing the regulatory framework which will govern the use of human cerebral organoids. Yet, a difference exists in that, whereas the judges already accept Happy is a moral patient, there is presently no consensus around the moral status of organoids. This paper will consider whether human cerebral organoids have passed the moral threshold of sentience. If they have, or are close to doing so, regulators ought to consider their legal status in advance so as to ensure that adequate limitations are placed on this usage so as to avoid unethical practices.
本文将探讨目前赋予非人类动物的法律地位是否应影响有关人类大脑类器官的监管辩论。纽约法院最近拒绝给予大象“快乐”人身保护令,因为它是财产而非法人,与此同时,法院也承认它是一个值得权利保护的道德主体。因此出现了一种不良情况,即法律认定一个具有道德地位的生物由于其作为财产的法律地位而无法从法律救济中受益。作者认为,在设计管理人类大脑类器官使用的监管框架时,我们应该避免这种情况。然而,不同之处在于,虽然法官们已经承认“快乐”是一个道德主体,但目前对于类器官的道德地位尚未达成共识。本文将探讨人类大脑类器官是否已经跨越了感知的道德门槛。如果它们已经跨越或接近跨越这一门槛,监管机构应该提前考虑它们的法律地位,以确保对这种使用方式进行充分限制,从而避免不道德的行为。