مقايسه تاثير عقل، اراده و طبيعت بر اعتبار حقوقي اصلاح ژنتيك انسان در حقوق ايران و انگلستان

The new technology of genetic modification, which is carried out with the goals of treatment or enhamcement and by using germline methods, i.e. on germ cells and somatic cells, i.e. on non-germinal cells, has affected human and his fundamental rights in such a way that in some cases the possibility of endangering the human generation brings with it; Based on this, it is necessary to review the rules governing this technology. The legal situation related to this field has been analyzed from three main approaches: "duty-oriented", "virtue-oriented" and finally "Consequence Oriented". In the duty-oriented approach, the concepts of "free will" and "duty", both the duty towards oneself and others, especially the duty of parents towards their children, as reasons in favor of human genetic modification and, on the contrary, the lack of "informed consent" and the insufficiency of the proxy consent from the original person, the violation of human dignity and some undesirable social results are the most important reasons for opposing genetic modification, and finally, fulfilling these duties, i.e. the duty to respect the individualʹs autonomy and the duty to perform duties towards the child, conflicted with each other and therefore the consequnce certainty cannot be inferred; However, the way out of this blockage is to choose the preferred task based on the results, based on which, due to the possibility of obtaining positive and important results and benefits, it is preferable to accept the possibility of modifying human genetics. In the virtue-oriented approach, in order to eva‎luate what is right or wrong, based on Aristotleʹs thought and the concept of "the nature of things" in his thought, which is affected by the data and the historical and social situation, the issue of human genetic modification is a function of the historical and social situation, so the ruling The same and fixed for all ages and societies cannot be extracted; However, governments have a responsibility for the virtuous lives of the people. On the other hand, according to Aristotleʹs emphasis on virtue, one of the possible ways to achieve it is genetic modification. From the point of view of the consequentialist approach, the basis of the rules is in the will of the person, whether it is the king, the government, or the lawgiver, and the governments themselves have made different choices and rules according to their different goals and structures; In welfare states, unlike the gendarmerie state, a wide range of interventions will take place, and even the possibility of forcing people to carry out these reforms is envisaged. Different reasons and opinions have been presented in religious thought that according to The principle of obscenity, the idea of allowing genetic modification, which is accompanied by some restrictions and conditions, is acceptable. Finally, after examining the existing reasons from the mentioned approaches, no decisive and strong reason can be found for banning genetic therapy reforms and enhancement, but this permission is limited to the extent that it does not cause violation of his dignity and departure from humanity.

5

77792