Lezione del 19 marzo 2012 - Giurisprudenza Unimi · Lezione del 19 marzo 2012 (Diritto e genetica)...

Lezione del 19 marzo 2012 (Diritto e genetica)

Prof. Amedeo Santosuosso [email protected]

La stampa e l'utilizzo di lucidi e di materiali messi a disposizione sono consentiti esclusivamente per le finalità del corso.

Ogni altro utilizzo deve essere preventivamente autorizzato.

Università degli Studi di Milano Facoltà di Giurisprudenza

Anno Accademico 2011-12

Corso Nuove dimensioni della libertà individuale

La sovranità dell’individuo

Legami biologici

Genetic (natural ?) ties

Biobanking/PMA/StemCells

Neuro, ICT and

Artificial (?) Connections

Quale diritto per tutto ciò?

Come cambiano i sistemi giuridici e le fonti

3

I “Savi” di Fausto Melotti

5

L’ordine giuridico patriarcale

8

New Jersey v. Japan

9

What about these cases/situations ?

I decide how/when my life ends!

10


Each individual is able to decide how/when her/his own life ends!

11


Each individual is able to decide how/when her/his own life ends!

12

I confini biologici dell’individuo sono frammentati a livello individuale Il controllo è rimesso alle libere scelte dell’individuo, mentre la società e il diritto stabiliscono le sole regole di compatibilità

La prospettiva

13

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill

14

“… there is a sphere of action in which society, as distinguished

from the individual, has, if any, only an indirect interest; comprehending all that portion of a person's life and conduct which affects only himself, or, if it also affects others, only with their free, voluntary, and undeceived consent and participation.”

“… the appropriate region of human liberty…”


15

“It comprises, first, the inward domain of consciousness” “Secondly, the principle requires liberty of tastes and pursuits;

of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow; without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong.

Thirdly, follows the liberty of combination among individuals;

freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age, and not forced or deceived.”


16

Two basic assumptions

a)   Society v. individuals


b) Individual v. each other individual

17

A conceptual clash: XIX Century

Galton 1869 Hereditary Genius

1859 John Stuart Mill On Liberty

18

A conceptual clash

Francis Galton 1869 Hereditary Genius à eugenics

1859 John Stuart Mill individualization ß On Liberty

A conceptual clash

“Nature teems with latent life, which man has large powers of evoking under the forms and to the extent which he desires.

We must not permit ourselves to consider each human or other personality as something super-naturally added to the stock of nature, but rather as a segregation of what already existed, under a new shape, and as a regular consequence of previous conditions.

A conceptual clash

Neither must we be misled by the word ‘individuality’, because […] our personalities are not so independent as our self-consciousness leads us to believe.

We may look upon each individual as something not wholly detached from its parent source. There is decidedly a solidarity as well as a separateness in all human, and probably in all lives whatsoever […]

A conceptual clash

All life is single in its essence, but various, ever varying, and inter-active in its manifestations, and men and all other living animals are active workers and sharers in a vastly more extended system of cosmic action.”

!The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), The third revolution: the convergence of the life sciences, physical sciences and engineering, 4 January 2011, http://web.mit.edu/dc/Policy/MIT%20White%20Paper%20on%20Convergence.pdf

26

APPLICAZIONI DELLA GENETICA RISVOLTI GIURIDICI

a)  Terapie geniche b)  Counseling genetico, diagnosi preimpianto e diagnosi prenatale c)  Test genetici: predittivi e presintomatici d)  Dati genetici condivisi e)  Dati genetici e assicurazioni f)  Dati genetici e datori di lavoro g)  Studi di popolazione h)  Clonazione umana i)  Cellule staminali di origine embrionale j)  Biotecnologie e proprietà intellettuale k)  Utilizzi nel processo civile (accertamento paternità…) l)  Utilizzi nel processo penale (identificazione, capacità…)

27


a) terapie geniche

Tecnica Obiettivo ideale: rimpiazzare un gene malato con una sua copia

sana (ricombinazione omologa), una vera sostituzione;

Modalità attuale: aggiunta del gene sano a quello malato, nella speranza che la sua azione possa annullare l’effetto della mutazione.

Primo esperimento al mondo 1990, Clinical Center del National Institute di Bethesda (US) su una bambina di 4 anni affetta da deficit dell’enzima ADA (prognosi infausta a breve)

Primo esperimento in Europa 1991, Istituto San Raffaele di Milano (I)

Tutti gli interventi sono preceduti da un parere di un comitato etico. Comitato Nazionale Bioetica 15.2.91

28


a) terapie geniche

Norme Consiglio d’Europa, Raccomandazione sull’ingegneria genetica n. 934 (1982)

1.  Il diritto alla vita e alla dignità dell’uomo “implicano il diritto di ereditare

caratteri genetici che non abbiano subito alcuna manipolazione” 2.  Unico intervento che può essere giustificato sull’uomo è quello di tipo

terapeutico 3.  Sarà opportuno tracciare le grandi linee di una regolamentazione volta a

proteggere gli individui contro le applicazioni di tali tecniche a fini non terapeutici.

Consiglio d’Europa, Racc. n. 1046(1986) e n. 1100 (1989) •  Bisogna evitare che qualcuno determini le caratteristiche genetiche di

qualcun altro, senza la sua volontà e per motivi non degni di tutela; •  Non è precluso l’intervento sul patrimonio genetico sull’embrione, in

vitro o in utero, o sul feto o su già nati; •  Ci deve essere una necessità terapeutica •  Deve essere compilata una lista di patologie.

29


a) terapie geniche

Diritto ad un patrimonio genetico non manipolato? caratteri non patologici

caratteri patologici (terapia genica somatica)

Diritto all’integrità genetica: “diritto ad ottenere l’assistenza necessaria a raggiungere un’identità genetica liberata dalle minorazioni che ne hanno colpito la struttura” (documento CNB del 15 febbraio 1991).

30


a) terapie geniche

Categorie giuridiche ed etiche di riferimento

•  Diritto alla salute (art. 32 Cost.)

•  Libertà personale (art. 13 Cost.)

•  Identità personale (art. 2 Cost.)

•  Art. 3 Carta di Nizza (integrità della persona)

•  Trattamenti sanitari sperimentali (norme di buona pratica clinica: Good Clinical Practice; Dichiarazione di Helsinki; Convenzione di Oviedo)

•  Principio di consequenzialità (J. S. Mill): non lesione di terzi, specie per interventi su linea germinale

31


a) terapie geniche

Il caso Jesse Gelsinger

1999 (US): Jesse Gelsinger muore a 18 anni a seguito di un tentativo di terapia genica (Università della Pennsylvania)

Malattia: una forma di grave epatopatia

Terapie disponibili: controllo con farmaci e con una dieta a basso contenuto proteico (terapia seguita).

Parere del Comitato etico: intervento “difficile da giustificare in pazienti che sono relativamente in salute”.

Consenso alla sperimentazione: SI, ha voluto partecipare ed era maggiorenne.

QUESITI Può un adulto decidere di correre il rischio di morire solo per migliorare la propria qualità della vita? Abbiamo bisogno di categorie giuridiche eccezionali?

32


a) terapie geniche

Terapia genica germinale Comporta il trasferimento delle modificazioni ai discendenti

§  è promettente dal punto di vista scientifico §  scarse conoscenze scientifiche acquisite

Norme contrasta con il diritto alla identità genetica: Cons. d’Europa, Raccom. 1100 (1989) ?

art. 13, Convenzione Oviedo (1997):

•  Vieta modificazioni del genoma della discendenza; •  Giustifica gli interventi di tipo somatico solo per finalità preventive,

diagnostiche o terapeutiche; •  Nulla dice sulla necessità che la malattia sia grave.

Rischi Nuova definizione di normalità Discriminazioni su base genetica: la malattia, l’inabilità e la morte prematura come

deviazioni dal funzionamento tipico della specie (eco dell’eugenica)

33

I test genetici

•  Test diagnostici

n  Test predittivi o di suscettibilità

n  Test preclinici o presintomatici

n  Test per la identificazione dei portatori sani

n  Test per lo studio della variabilità individuale n  Test farmacogenetici n  Test a scopo di ricerca

CLASSIFICAZIONE

34

Test genetici (C.N. per la Biosicurezza e le Biotecnologie)

(1998) Si intendono le analisi a scopo clinico di DNA, RNA, cromosomi, proteine, metaboliti o altri prodotti genici per evidenziare genotipi, mutazioni, fenotipi o cariotipi correlati o meno con patologie umane ereditabili o insorte su cellule somatiche. Rispetto ad altri esami di laboratorio i risultati di queste analisi, oltre che diagnostici e prognostici, possono risultare predittivi e rendere evidente una suscettibilità e una probabilità di sviluppare una malattia. Coinvolgono inoltre non solo il paziente ma anche la sua famiglia e la sua discendenza.

35

Le malattie genetiche a base ereditaria posso essere causate da:

•  mutazioni costitutive in un singolo gene (in alcuni casi può esservi l’interazione con fattori ambientali)

•  mutazioni costitutive in più geni, frequentemente in associazione con fattori ambientali

•  ereditarietà cromosomica/eredidarietà mitocondriale

⇓ ereditarietà monogenica

⇓ ereditarietà poligenica

36


c) test genetici predittivi e presintomatici

test presintomatici: identificano, in un soggetto non ammalato, una condizione relativa a una malattia che inevitabilmente si svilupperà nel corso della vita (corea di Huntington);

test predittivi: identificano un aumento o una diminuzione del rischio di contrarre in

futuro una data malattia o suscettibilità (BRCA1, BRCA2, gene APC)

Convenzione di Oviedo (1997)

I test predittivi sono consentiti “solo a fini medici o di ricerca legata alla tutela della salute”, e con una consulenza genetica appropriata (art. 12).

QUESITO Si può vietare a una persona di conoscere la propria condizione genetica, anche con la consapevolezza del basso tasso di predittività che la diagnosi di una mutazione può comportare?

37


c) test genetici predittivi e presintomatici

il caso Katskee (1996, US)

il caso: •  Una giovane donna americana (Katskee) effettua un test genetico dal quale

emerge la sua predisposizione al tumore dell’ovaio; •  Si sottopone a rimozione chirurgica profilattica di ovaie e utero; •  La sua assicurazione nega il rimborso in quanto non riconosce la donna come

“malata”; •  I giudici condannano la compagnia a pagare sulla base del concetto di atto

medicalmente necessario, che rientra nel contratto di assicurazione sanitaria.

QUESITI Come si definisce la malattia? Qual è la differenza tra sintomo e malattia? Può dirsi malato chi ha solo il rischio di ammalarsi? Qual è il criterio rilevante per il diritto ? Possono i giudici interpretare in modo estensivo una clausola contrattuale?

38

Genetic testing and the Council of Europe

•  Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine - ETS no. 164

(known as Oviedo Convention) •  Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine,

concerning the Genetic Testing for Health Purposes - May 7th, 2008

•  Explanatory Report to the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights

and Biomedicine, concerning the Genetic Testing for Health Purposes

40

Oviedo Convention

41

The Additional Protocol on Genetic Testing at a glance (a) Chapter I – Object and scope

Article 1 – Object and purpose Article 2 – Scope

Chapter II – General provisions Article 3 – Primacy of the human being Article 4 – Non-discrimination and non-stigmatisation

Chapter III – Genetic services Article 5 – Quality of genetic services Article 6 – Clinical utility Article 7 – Individualised supervision

Chapter IV – Information, genetic counselling and consent Article 8 – Information and genetic counselling Article 9 – Consent

Chapter V – Persons not able to consent Article 10 – Protection of persons not able to consent Article 11 – Information prior to authorisation, genetic counselling and support Article 12 – Authorisation

42

Chapter VI – Tests for the benefit of family members Article 13 – Tests on persons not able to consent Article 14 – Tests on biological materials when it is not possible to contact the person concerned Article 15 – Tests on deceased persons

Chapter VII – Private life and right to information

Article 16 – Respect for private life and right to information Article 17 – Biological samples Article 18 – Information relevant to family members

Chapter VIII – Genetic screening programmes for health purposes

Article 19 – Genetic screening programmes for health purposes Chapter IX – Public information

Article 20 – Public information Chapter X – Relation between this Protocol and other provisions and re-examination of the Protocol

The Additional Protocol on Genetic Testing at a glance (b)

43

Is genetic testing exceptional ?

The concept of exceptional implies that existing ethical and legal rules are not able to face the new problems

and

we have to create new ones.

44

Is genetic testing exceptional ? Article 5 – Quality of genetic services [...] a genetic tests meet generally accepted criteria of scientific validity and clinical validity; [...] a quality assurance programme is implemented in each laboratory è...] persons providing genetic services have appropriate qualifications to enable them to perform their role in accordance with professional obligations and standards. Article 6 – Clinical utility Clinical utility of a genetic test shall be an essential criterion for deciding to offer this test to a person or a group of persons.

Article 8 – Information and genetic counselling When a genetic test is envisaged, the person concerned shall be provided with prior appropriate information in particular on the purpose and the nature of the test, as well as the implications of its results.

45

Is genetic testing exceptional ? Article 9 - Consent

A genetic test may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it. Article 10 – Protection of persons not able to consent Subject to Article 13 of this Protocol, a genetic test on a person who does not have the capacity to consent may only be carried out for his or her direct benefit. Chapter VI – Tests for the benefit of family members Article 13 – Tests on persons not able to consent [...] the law may allow a genetic test to be carried out, for the benefit of family members, on a person who does not have the capacity to consent, if [...] the purpose of the test is to allow the family member(s) concerned to obtain a preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic benefit that has been independently evaluated as important for their health, or to allow them to make an informed choice with respect to procreation; [...] the benefit envisaged cannot be obtained without carrying out this test;

46

Is genetic testing exceptional ?

Assumed that the Protocol is on genetic testing for health purposes:

Quale di queste regole non potrebbe essere applicata a altri trattamenti medici?

O Quale di queste regole non funzionerebbe se applicata a altri trattamenti medici? (HIV, tuberculosis ...)

Ma allora, perché dovremmo avere regole così particolari per la genetica e i test genetici?

47

Genetic Exceptionalism?

•  Is there any clear demarcation that separates genetic data from other health data?

•  Can physicians always differentiate genetic information from other information in a medical record?

•  Does genetic data have a more stigmatizing effect than other personal information related to mental health, HIV, STD and others?

48


In other words, the need for overtaking exceptionalism seems to reach the target in all cases

where •  the question is strictly related to medical data as individual

data •  and privacy rules can be adapted and made to work.

49


Is the argument over exceptionalism sound in all the fields of application of genetics?

What about the almost unique property of genetic data:

familiarity?

50

How do genetics affect family ties ?

51

Article 18 – Information relevant to family members Where the results of a genetic test undertaken on a person can be relevant to the health of other family members, the person tested shall be informed.

What about people able to consent ?

The general rule of informed consent ?

52

Article 8 – Information and genetic counselling 1 When a genetic test is envisaged, the person concerned shall be provided with

prior appropriate information in particular on the purpose and the nature of the test, as well as the implications of its results.

2 For predictive genetic tests as referred to in Article 12 of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, appropriate genetic counselling shall also be available for the person concerned. […]

The form and extent of this genetic counselling shall be defined according to the implications of the results of the test and their significance for the person or the members of his or her family […].

53

140. For the communication of this information to the family members, appropriate provisions should be made, bearing in mind the rules on confidentiality and the protection of the private life of the various persons concerned (person on whom the test is performed and members of his or her family). The choice of procedure(s) is left to the States. If the person tested is unable or unwilling to contact his or her family members directly he or she may be given appropriate material or letters to pass on to the family member(s). Consideration could be given to setting up a mediating body responsible for contacting family members of the person concerned if the latter has asked for them to be informed without him or herself being identifiable as the source of the information. Another example, would be the possibility to provide for a decision by a competent body, following comparative assessment of the respective interests of the persons concerned, on whether or not the information in question must be communicated to the members of the family.

54

b) Family members or biological group ?

Two questions:

a)   On information and consent:

•  Are provisions on information an adequate safeguard ?

•  If informed consent is the rule, informed refusal should be considered on an equal basis ?

•  What are the consequences ?

55

a) On information and consent: How to deal with the conflicts within the biological group?

Question: Do the privacy rules cover all the conflicts arising

in those situations ?

•  if sharing data gives each “share-holder” a right of (non)disposal of data of the other “share-holders”, we would no longer have any genetic privacy.

•  What response to the share-holders who need to know more about the genetic data of other share-holders for health reasons ?

56

Case law

(i)  the Icelandic Supreme Court decision (27 November 2003), who upheld the right of a woman to prohibit the transfer of the died father’s information into the national database;

(ii)  the decision of an Italian Administrative Court (Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale Veneto, 30 gennaio 2003) on the right of a woman to have access to her sister’s medical data, which were collected in a hospital repository;

(iii)  the decision issued by the Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy, 1999);

(iv)  Tribunal of Milan, 2008, on a deceased person

(v)  .... Other cases....

57

a) On information and consent: How to deal with the conflicts within the biological group?

Each member of a biological group shares, to some extent, its genetic dowry with the members of the same genetic line or collateral relatives.

•  Se ognuno condivide una parte del proprio patrimonio genetico con i membri del proprio gruppo biologico, si può continuare a dire che ognuno ha il proprio patrimonio genetico?

58

the relatedness between two brothers (apart from monozygotic twins who share 100% of their genome sequence) is 50% on average. Child grandparent pairs or child uncle pairs tend to share 25% of the variable portion of their genome. Likewise, first degree cousins and child great-grandparent pairs share 12.5% and, going further in genetic relatedness, second degree cousins only 3.1% of the variable portion of their genome.

Where do we draw the boundary line?

59

“Due to the special nature and characteristics of genetic data and the impact their use may have on the individual's life and on the members of his family, it is very important to determine the purposes for which genetic data may be processed.

[…] Thus, a new, legally relevant social group can be said to have

come into existence – namely, the BIOLOGICAL GROUP, the group of kindred as opposed, technically speaking, to one’s family. Indeed, such group does not include family members such as one’s spouse or foster children, whereas it also consists of entities outside the family circle – whether in law or factually – such as gamete donors or the woman who, at the time of childbirth, did not recognise her child and requested that her particulars should not be disclosed – this right being supported in certain legal systems”.

European data protection Working Party��art. 29 of the Working Document on Genetic Data

(17 March 2004)

b) Family v. biological group

60

Council of Europe, Recommendation 1997(5). Point 58 of the

Memorandum:

“The collection and processing of genetic data involves the storage of data concerning third parties.

These third parties may be constituted by members of the data subject's genetic line or collateral relatives or members of his/her social family…


61

The drafters agreed to accord an intermediate status to members of the data subject's genetic line

so as to distinguish them from third parties in the strict

sense of the term and to grant them a hybrid legal protection.”


62

One of the fundamental features of genetic data consists both in its marking out an individual from others and the fact that this data – and more precisely: the characteristics to which it refers - is structurally shared by all the members of the same biological group.

ARTICLE 29 Data Protection Working Party Working

Document on Genetic Data (17 March 2004)


63

Given the highly sensitive nature of this issue, a balance must be found between a data subject’s right not to disclose hits or her genetic information and the potential serious implications the disclosure and use of such information could have on the members of a biological family.

ARTICLE 29 Data Protection Working Party Working

Document on Genetic Data (17 March 2004)


64

The problem

We have no definition of the concept of ü  intermediate status ü  hybrid legal protection ü  balance of rights .

65

As a consequence

•  Legal criteria, according to which such a hybrid or intermediate status should be defined

•  and the way of managing the conflicts among third parties having an intermediate status

are dramatically unclear.

66

Penale o passare a “Consenso”

DNA penale

68

The Dobbiaco murder an elderly wowan is raped and wildly murdered. The crime takes place in a small mountain village near the town

of Dobbiaco, in Alto Adige region.

69

The fact

•  An elderly woman is raped and wildly murdered. •  The crime takes place in a small mountain village

near the town of Dobbiaco, in Alto Adige region. •  Nothing was taken away by the murder, not even

the victim’s wallet which was found by the Police on a table

70

The evidence

•  No witness was able to help the Police. Investigators can only rely on two facts:

•  the victim’s house is located in an isolated place; the same village rises in an isolated valley. According to the above evidence, detectives are confident that the murder was likely to live in that area;

•  DNA testing on biological samples collected during the investigation developed the murderer’s DNA profile.

71

The investigation

•  All the inhabitants of the village were asked to give voluntarily a saliva sample;

•  DNA testing on that samples; •  DNA profiling of all the donors; •  Comparison between the murderer’s DNA profile

and the DNA profiles obtained by the inhabitants of the village.

72

The outcome

•  A match was found between the murderer’s profile and a profile obtained from an elderly inhabitant of the village.

•  The murderer belonged to the familial group of the elderly donor;

•  The elderly donor’s young son was briefly questioned by the Police;

•  The indicted person confessed: he was sentenced to a 24 year prison-term

73

..a starting point

Investigators can only rely on two main facts: •  origin of the murderer from the same territory of the

victim; •  murderer’s Dna profile obtained by semen samples

detected on the victim’s body

74

..and the following investigations

•  all the inhabitants of the village are asked to give voluntarily a saliva sample;

•  DNA testing on that samples; •  DNA profiling of all the donors; •  comparison between the murderer’s DNA profile and the

DNA profiles obtained by the inhabitants of the village.

75

A succesfully outcome

•  a partial match is found between the murderer’s profile and a profile obtained from an elderly inhabitant of the village.

•  the expert can affirm that the murderer belongs to the family circle of the elderly donor;

•  the elderly donor’s young son is questioned by the Police; •  the indicted person confesses: he is condemned to a 24

year prison-term

76

The Harman case

•  Mr. Harman throw a brick from a bridge, which crashed through a lorry windscreen;

•  the brick hits driver’s chest and kill him; •  Police obtains the offender’s DNA profile from blood left

on the brick; •  thanks to familial searching, Police identify a brother of

the offender who was in the NDNAD; •  Police question Mr. Harman and he confesses the crime

77

Familial DNA searching

•  used in twenty cases in UK (succesfully in five cases) •  routinely used in many other countries (i.e. USA..)

On this base, we can affirm that: in the perspective of criminal investigations genetic data sharing is undoubtedly an helpful characteristic

78

It is necessary to find the right balance between the needs of police investigations

and people’s civil rights

79

•  In the Dobbiaco case all the inhabitants, that voluntarily gave the bio-sample, acted with the reasonable aim to be discharged from any possible suspect, but:

Ø  Does the Police informed the inhabitants that the DNA test could also lead

to their relatives’ indictment ? Ø  Was this piece of information necessary according with the right to a due

process and the inhabitants’ right to privacy ?

80

•  Art. 199 code crim. proc. law. : anyone can refuse testimony against his close relatives. The witness must be informed aboust his right to refuse testimony. If he is not informed, the testimony is void.

To give a saliva sample for a DNA analysis is something similar of

rendering a testimony. But the inhabitants were not informed about the possibility to detect one of their relatives thanks to their biological samples. They did not have the possibility to make a conscious (informed) decision.

81

•  UK NDNAD holds more then 2.5 million profiles collected from charged criminal and suspects.

Is not allowed to collect and enter into the Database profiles from people

without any criminal conviction.. But, the sharing of genetic data among the members of the bio familial

group, leads to enlarge indirectly the DNA Databank to all the biological relatives of charged criminals

82

•  NDNAD Annual Report 2002-2003 states that: “has recently sought advice from the Information Commissioner on the ethics and data protection issues of using this new approach (the familial searching) more widely and will be issuing guidelines in the near future”

•  The ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officer), as yet no publicly available guidelines have been issued, decide to suspend for a short time the use of familial searching

•  The Human Genetic Commission recommended the use of familial searching only in most serious offenses

83

•  Massachusetts Regs. Code 515 § 2.14: Mutual Exchange, Use and Storage of Dna Records.

“Loci requirements. For purposes of searches of the DNA Database, a minimum of four loci shall be provided by a laboratory or other authorized agency requesting a casework (forensic) search against the DNA Database. Notwithstanding this requirement, the laboratory or other authorized agency may, at is discretion, request that a search can be performed using fewer loci if there are scientific reasons which support using fewer than four loci in a particular case…”

84

•  New York Comp. Codes R. & Regs. 9 § 6192.3: Forensic DNA methodology

“.. Casework evidence Dna profiles to be maintained in the Dna databank shall be comprised of information for at least six of the STR loci or other combinations of loci using alternative technologies approved for use in the NDIS Standards for Acceptance of Dan Data. This requirement for a minimum number of loci applies only to those casework evidence Dna profiles which an authorized laboratory desires to have maintained in the forensic index of the Dna databank. For purposes of searches of the Dna databank, a minimum of four loci shall be provided by a laboratory requesting a casework search against the Dna databank.”

85

•  The Future of Forensic DNA Testing, Nationa Judicial Institute, washington D.C., 2000

“with 13 STR loci it is quite likely that a search of a database will identify

a person who is relative of the person contributing the evidence sample. We discussed earlier a pair of profiles that almost certainly came from siblings, and parent-child combinations can also be identified. Other close relatives may also be identified, but with less certainty. Suppose a crime scene profile shows a partial match with someone in the database. Are law enforcement officers entitled to investigate the relatives ? “

86

Questions

•  Can the familial DNA searching violate the familial group’s right to privacy ?

•  What measures are to be adopted in order to protect this right to privacy ?

•  Do we need strong guidelines for the use of DNA fingerprinting ?

•  How to find a balance between individual rights and the needs of police investigations ?

•  Do we need a “European” approach to this topics ?

Lezione del 19 marzo 2012 - Giurisprudenza Unimi · Lezione del 19 marzo 2012 (Diritto e genetica)...

Documents

Transcript of Lezione del 19 marzo 2012 - Giurisprudenza Unimi · Lezione del 19 marzo 2012 (Diritto e genetica)...