El papel de las ciencias empíricas en el derecho: el estatus del embrión humano / The role of empirical sciences in the law: the status of the human embryo / El paper de les ciències empíriques en el dret: l'estatus de l'embrió humà

Se analizan dos sentencias Ajudiciales antagónicas en relación con el estatus jurídico del embrión humano: el fallo "Portal de Belén", de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Argentina, y "Artavia Murillo", de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Mi propósito es mostrar que, a pesar de sostener posiciones contrarias, ambas sentencias cometen el mismo tipo de error conceptual: justificar su tesis acerca del estatus del embrión humano en consideraciones biológicas acerca del desarrollo embrionario. Detectar este tipo de falencia argumentativa puede ser útil para el análisis de muchas decisiones judiciales sobre temas bioéticos

In this paper, I consider two opposite judicial decisions concerning the legal status of the human embryo: "Portal de Belén" by the Argentine Supreme Court, and "Artavia Murillo" by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. My purpose is to show that, although both decisions defend opposite positions, they commit the same kind of mistake. Both seek to ground a position about the legal status of the human embryo on biological considerations on embryo development. Highlighting this kind of argumentative failure can be useful for the analysis of judicial decisions with bioethical import

S'analitzen dues sentències judicials antagòniques en relació amb l'estatus jurídic de l'embrió humà: la sentència "Portal de Belém", de la Cort Suprema de Justícia de l'Argentina, i la sentència "Artavia Murillo", de la Cort Interamericana de Drets Humans. El meu propòsit és mostrar que, malgrat sostenir posicions contràries, ambdues sentències cometen el mateix tipus d'error conceptual: basar la seva tesi sobre l'estatus de l'embrió humà en consideracions biològiques sobre el desenvolupament embrionari. Detectar aquest tipus de fal·làcia argumentativa pot ser útil per a l'anàlisi de moltes decisions judicials sobre temes bioètics

REACH and reproductive and developmental toxicology: still questions.

Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) is a new chemicals regulation law in the European Union (EU). The law is supplemented by tens of thousands of pages of guidance documents, and the implementation of REACH is still a work in progress. Requirements for chemical testing are based on the annual volume of a chemical or 'substance' that is produced or imported into the EU. These requirements include reproductive and developmental toxicity testing in experimental animals for an annual volume of 10 metric tonnes or more. However, under REACH, the testing in vertebrate animals may not be performed without permission, and the law encourages the use of alternative methods of filling data gaps on the toxicological properties of chemicals. These alternatives might include in vitro and structure-activity relationship studies, but the REACH technical guidance indicates that these kinds of studies are not adequate to replace reproductive and developmental toxicity testing in whole animals. The most practical opportunity for the avoidance of whole animal testing may be 'read-across,' a process in which gaps are filled using data from related compounds. A method called 'weight of evidence' under REACH may also be used to avoid whole animal reproductive and developmental toxicity testing based on existing data in regulation and non-regulation studies and based on factors such as chemical structure and anticipated exposure. It is also possible that thresholds of toxicological concerns will be accepted under REACH as a method to avoid vertebrate animal testing.