查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 人類胚胎幹細胞研究的憲法問題=The Constitutional Issues of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research |
---|---|
作 者 | 陳英鈐; | 書刊名 | 臺北大學法學論叢 |
卷 期 | 56 2005.06[民94.06] |
頁 次 | 頁41-110 |
分類號 | 368 |
關鍵詞 | 胚胎; 胚胎幹細胞; 人性尊嚴; 生命權; 剩餘胚胎; 醫療性複製; 孤雌生殖; 幹細胞重新設定; 雜種體細胞核移轉; 人的模型; 物的模型; 階段保護模型; Embryos; Embryonic stem cells; Human dignity; The right to life; Spare embryo; Therapeutic cloning; Parthenogenesis; Reprogramming of stem cells; Hybrid somatic nuclear transfer; Person model; Object model; Gradual protection model; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 幹細胞研究可能打開治療人類不治疾病的一扇窗,其中文以胚胎幹細胞最具科學的研究前景。然而從胚胎取得胚胎幹細胞卻會導致胚胎銷毀或不適合植入母體。如何兼顧科學發展與胚胎保護,成為胚胎幹細胞研究的巨大挑戰。從憲法的角度來看,研究人員可以主張對胚胎與胚胎幹細胞的研究自由,國家也有義務促進科學研究,增進國民健康。另一方面,胚胎若享有生命基本權,會形成對胚胎幹細胞研究的限制。主張人的模型者試圖從人種論證、同一性論證、潛能論證以及連續性論證出發,證成胚胎享有生命基本權,且應與已出生之人享有同樣程度的保護。他們基本上犯了由事實推出規範,由存在推論出當為的自然主意的錯誤推論,並且與現行法的整體價值判斷不符,連反憲法解釋的符合原則。主張物的模型者認為人類胚胎不過是一堆細胞,胚胎變成單純的研究材料,更令人難以接受。本文採取「階段保護模型」,隨著胚胎的發展賦予不同強度的生命基本權保護。對於授精後發展尚未超過14天的早期胚胎之保護,可由立法機關審酌其與研究自由、人民醫療的需求之關係來決定其保護強度。 人性尊嚴乃憲法不成文的主觀基本權利,同時為憲法基本構成原則。早期胚胎亦為人性尊嚴基本權利的主體。人性尊嚴固然不可侵犯,具有優越於其他基本權利的效力。胚胎幹細胞研究並無侵犯人性尊嚴保護的核心領域,是否應予容許應視個案情況才能決定。胚胎幹細胞可以由下列來源取得:人工生殖的剩餘胚胎、為研究目的以體外受精製造的胚胎、以體細胞核移轉製造的人類胚胎、以孤雌生殖技術製造的胚胎、運用幹細胞重新設定方法製造的類似胚胎結構以及運用體細胞核移轉製造的人兔混合胚胎。只要國家善盡其對胚胎人性尊嚴的保護義務,以上各種取得幹細胞的方式皆有可能合憲。 從以上的憲法討論來看,行政院衛生署醫學倫理委員會所發佈之「胚胎幹細胞研究的倫理規範」並不符合法律保留原則要求,無法滿足科學發展所需之明確法律架構,尤其對於醫療性複製態度曖昧,容易引發法律紛爭。醫師法的醫學倫理條款並不符合法律明確性原則,對於醫療性複製容許與否更不能藉此作成政策決定。人體器官移植條例授權對進口胚胎與胚胎幹細胞進行管制,有抵觸授權明確性之虞,恐將衍生新的法律爭議。 |
英文摘要 | Stem cell research opens the window for the treatment of nowadays incurable diseases. Embryonic stem cell research is among others most promising. However, it leads to the destruction of embryos or at least their unsuitability of implantation in the women’s womb. It is a great challenge to balance the interests of biomedical research and embryo protection. On the one hand, the scientist may claim the freedom of enquiry on embryos and embryonic stem cells, the state has also the obligation to promote scientific development and people’s health. On the other hand, if the embryo has the right to life, embryonic stem cell research will be accordingly limited. The proponents of person-model justify the embryo’s right to life from the so-called species, identity, potentiality and continuality arguments. They commit the natural fallacy, which deduces normative propositions from the facts. The person-model is furthermore incompatible with the other current regulations and fit principle of constitutional interpretation. The proponents of object-model regard an embryo as no more than a cluster of cells and pure research object. This essay takes an intermediate position - the gradual protection model, and grants embryos different degrees of protection according to its stages of development. The protection of early embryos, developing no more than 14 days after fertilization, stays at the legislative discretion. Human dignity is an unwritten fundamental right and one of the basic constitutional principles. Early embryos possess also the right to human dignity. Human dignity is inviolable and superior to other fundamental rights in its validity. However, embryonic stem cell research doesn’t violate the core area of human dignity. It depends on the case situation, weather it should be allowed. Embryonic stem cells may come from the following sources: spare embryos of in-vitro-fertilization, embryos produced for the purpose of research, through somatic nuclear transfer, parthenogenesis, and reprogramming of stem cells as well as human-animal hybrid embryos. So long as the state fulfills its obligation to protect human dignity, the above mentioned methods may be constitutional. The Ethical Guideline for Embryonic Stem Cells, issued by the Ministry of Health, is not commensurate with the principle of legal preservation and can’t offer an undisputable legal framework for biomedical development. Controversies may especially arise from its ambiguous attitudes towards therapeutic cloning. The medical-ethics clause pursuant to physician law is against the principle of legal certainty. Weather therapeutic cloning should be allowed, shouldn’t be smuggled through this back door. The Human Organ Transplantation Act authorizes the agency to regulate the import and export of human embryos and embryonic stem cells. But the delegation is not clear enough, from which new controversies may result. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。