ABSTRACT
The author discusses problems of the "Rule of 3" (Dreierregel) meaning that only three pre-embryos are allowed to be produced within one fertilisation process. This rule is based on the Embryo Protection Act and restricts methods of reproductive medicine. These limits have provoked a debate among the legal community on the question whether certain methods still conform to the law or if the law has to be adapted. This article both outlines and criticizes the arguments put forward in the debate and contrasts them to a proposal made by the German Medical Association.
Subject(s)
Embryo, Mammalian/physiology , Fertilization in Vitro/standards , Reproductive Medicine/legislation & jurisprudence , Reproductive Medicine/standards , Female , Germany , Humans , Male , Pregnancy , Societies, MedicalSubject(s)
Tissue and Organ Procurement/organization & administration , Transplantation , Federal Government , Germany , Government Regulation , Humans , Tissue Donors/legislation & jurisprudence , Tissue Donors/statistics & numerical data , Tissue Donors/supply & distribution , Tissue and Organ Procurement/legislation & jurisprudence , Tissue and Organ Procurement/statistics & numerical data , Transplantation/legislation & jurisprudence , Transplantation/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
Repeatedly expressed worries that doctors are at risk for malpractice suits and for ending up in prison do not really reflect reality. An empirical study on public prosecutors' offices demonstrated that malpractice proceedings where doctors were blamed for treatment errors had predominantly been closed. If a long time passes between the opening and the closing proceedings this is often due to the colleagues who take more than average time to state their expert opinion as requested. In most cases these expert medical opinions are decisive in the outcome of these proceedings.