Защита генетической информации человека в ЕС: этические, конституционные и уголовно-правовые аспекты

Европейский cоюз достиг значительных успехов в персонализированной и регенеративной медицине, иммунологии, практиках питания, спортивной медицине и индустрии здоровья благодаря широкому внедрению геномных и постгеномных технологий в этих областях. В этой статье анализируется практическое применение геномики и биоэтики ЕС с особым упором на исследование передовых юридических методологий, таких как Lex Genetica и Legal Biotech. Рынок геномных исследований ЕС быстро расширяется наряду с постоянным прогрессом и эффективной интеграцией генетических технологий. Следовательно, существует острая необходимость усилить правовую защиту и гарантии в сфере уголовного законодательства ЕС, особенно в отношении конфиденциальности геномной информации человека. Актуальность правового регулирования всех сопутствующих процессов стала очевидной в условиях глобального внедрения постгеномных технологий и общеевропейской тенденции перехода от фундаментальных поисковых исследований к практическому применению «омик»-технологий в ЕС (т.е. изучение генома, протеома и метаболитов). Во многих юрисдикциях ЕС предусмотрены преступления, связанные с генетическими технологиями, включая клонирование, изменение зародышевой линии человека и распространение ГМО без соответствующих разрешений. Однако конкретные правонарушения в странах ЕС в значительной степени различаются. 

1. Angers, A., Bohacova, A., Kaye, J., Gardner, R., Petrillo, M., Querci, M., Raffael, B., & Van Den Eede, G. (2018). Overview of EU National Legislation on Genomics. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2760/04463.

2. Burton, H., Cole, T., & Lucassen, A.M. (2012). Genomic medicine: challenges and opportunities for physicians. Clinical medicine, 12(5), 416–419. https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.12-5-416

3. Clayton, E.W., Evans, B.J., Hazel, J.W., & Rothstein, M.A. (2019). The law of genetic privacy: applications, implications, and limitations. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 6(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz007

4. Committee on Bioethics. (2015). Statement on genome editing technologies. (8th meeting, 2015 December 1–4). Strasbourg. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/168049034a

5. Council of Europe. (1997, April 4). 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. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/168007cf98

6. Danelyan, A.A., & Gulyaeva, E.E. (2020). Cybersecurity in International Law. Moscow Journal of International Law, (1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2020-1-44-53

7. Denisenko, V., & Trikoz, E. (2020). Biopolitics and legal issues of emergency situations in the context of coronavirus pandemic. In: E3S Web of Conferences. Vol. 175 (pp. 14013). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202017514013

8. Dupan, A.S., Titova, S.V., Zhulin, A.B., Zharova, A.K., Elin, V.M., Bikbulatov, T.I., ... & Rimsha, D. (2016). A new paradigm of personal data protection and management in the Russian Federation and foreign countries in the conditions of development of data processing systems in the Internet. Moscow: Higher School of Economics. (In Russ.).

9. European Commission. (2009). 25 recommendations on the ethical, legal and social implications of genetic testing. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/24e42df9-799d-4108-bbf8-dbd9e3c35241/language-en/format-PDF/source-search.

10. European Commission. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies. (2021). Values for the Future: The Role of Ethics in European and Global Governance. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Available at: https://www.sls.se/globalassets/sls/etik/dokument/egestatementvaluesforthefuture2021.pdf.

11. FRA and Council of Europe. (2018). Handbook on European data protection law. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Handbook_data_protection_Eng.

12. Furrow, В., Greaney, T., Johnson, S., Jost, T., & Schwartz, R. (2013). Bioethics: Health Care Law and Ethics (American Casebook Series) (7th ed.). West Academic Publishing.

13. German Embryo Protection Act. (2013, December 13). Gesetz zum Schutz von Embryonen (Embryonenschutzgesetz-ESchG). Available at: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/3_Downloads/Gesetze_und_Verordnungen/GuV/E/ESchG_EN_Fassung_Stand_10Dez2014_01.pdf

14. Harper, J., Geraedts, J., Borry, P., Cornel, M.C., Dondorp, W.J., Gianaroli, L., … & Macek M. Jr (2014). Current issues in medically assisted reproduction and genetics in Europe: research, clinical practice, ethics, legal issues and policy. Human Reproduction, 29(8), 1603–1609. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.219

15. Karačić, J., Viđak, M. & Marušić, A. (2021). Reporting violations of European Charter of Patients’ Rights: analysis of patient complaints in Croatia. BMC Med Ethics, (22), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00714-3

16. Kohn, D.B., Porteus, M.H., & Scharenberg, A.M. (2016). Ethical and regulatory aspects of genome editing. Blood, 127(21), 2553–2560. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2016-01-678136

17. Korać, A. (1999). Draft of the Croatian Act on Medically Assisted Procreation–Balancing Procreative Rights. Društvena istraživanja: časopis za opća društvena pitanja, 8(2-3 (40-41)), 229–238. Available at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/31910

18. Leefmann, J., Schaper, M., & Schicktanz, S. (2017). The concept of ‘genetic responsibility’ and its meanings: a systematic review of qualitative medical sociology literature. Frontiers in Sociology, (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2016.00018

19. Leenen, H.J.J., Pinet, G., & Prims, A.V. (1986). Trends in health legislation in Europe. Paris: Masson for the WHO.

20. Lemke, T. (2006). Genetic responsibility and neoliberal governmentality: medical diagnosis as moral technology. In: A. Beaulieu & D. Gibbard (Eds.). Michel Foucault and Power Today: Interdisciplinary Studies in the History of the Present (pp. 83–91). Oxford: Lexington Books.

21. Lipkin, M., & Rowley, P.T. (Eds.). (1974). Genetic Responsibility on Choosing Our Children's Genes. New York: Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2118-7

22. McNally, E., Cambon-Thomsen, A., Brazell, C., Cassiman, J.J., Kent, A., & Lindpaintner, K. (2004). Ethical, legal and social aspects of genetic testing: research, development and clinical applications. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

23. Nadkarni, P.M. (2011). What Is Metadata? In: Metadata-driven Software Systems in Biomedicine. Health Informatics. London: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-510-1_1

24. Raposo, V.L. (2017). The new Portuguese law on surrogacy-The story of how a promising law does not really regulate surrogacy arrangements. JBRA assisted reproduction, 21(3), 230–239. https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20170044.

25. Raz, A.E., & Schicktanz, S. (2009). Diversity and uniformity in genetic responsibility: moral attitudes of patients, relatives and lay people in Germany and Israel. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 12(4), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-009-9215-x

26. Rudinskiy, F.M. (2006). Civil human rights: modern issues of theory and practice (2 ed.). Moscow: Mir Publ. (In Russ.).

27. Schicktanz, S., & Schweda, M. (2012). The diversity of responsibility: the value of explication and pluralization. Medicine studies, (3), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12376-011-0070-8

28. Soini, S., Ibarreta, D., Anastasiadou, V., Aymé, S., Braga, S., Cornel, M., ... & Kääriäinen, H. (2006). The interface between assisted reproductive technologies and genetics: technical, social, ethical and legal issues. European Journal of Human Genetics, 14(5), 588–645. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201598

29. Travieso, J.A., Ferraro, A.V., Trikoz, E.N., & Gulyaeva, E.E. (2021). Bioethical Aspects of Human Rights in Modern Latin America. Kutafin Law Review, 8(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.17803/23135395.2021.1.15.085-098

30. Trikoz, E., & Gulyaeva, E. (2021). Ecological cases of the ECtHR and the environmental risk of GMO. In: E3S Web of Conferences. Vol. 244 ( pp. 12024). EDP Sciences. Available at: https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2021/20/e3sconf_emmft2020_12024.pdf.

31. Trikoz, E.N., & Gulyaeva, E.E. (2018). The ECtHR Opinions on Some Issues of Bioethics and Genetic Data. Advances in Law Studies, 6(4), 36–40. (In Russ.).

32. Trikoz, E.N., Mustafina-Bredihina, D.M., & Gulyaeva, E.E. (2021). Legal regulation of gene editing procedure: USA and EU experience. RUDN Journal of Law, 25(1), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.22363/23132337-2021-25-1-67-86. (In Russ.).

33. Wertz, D.C., Fletcher, G.F., & Berg, K. (2003). Review of ethical issues in medical genetics: report of consultants to WHO (No. WHO/HGN/ETH/00.4).

34. World Health Organization. World Health Organization. (1998). Proposed international guidelines on ethical issues in medical genetics and genetic services. Report of a WHO Meeting on Ethical Issues and Medical Genetics. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/63910/WHO_HGN_GL_ETH_98.1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

35. Yastrebova, A.Yu., & Gulyaeva, E.E. (2021). Right to Health in the International Legal System of Human Rights at the Universal and Regional Levels. Moscow Journal of International Law, (2), 99–121. https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2021-2-99-121. (In Russ.).

36. Zakharova, M.V. (2019). The constitution on the genomic research: a view of Russia and Switzerland. Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), (4), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.17803/23115998.2019.56.4.101-107. (In Russ.).