A critical review of the right to know and the information provision of the perpetrator

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Gyu-Won Chang
Keyword(s):  
Critical Review ◽  
Information Provision ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
The Right

scholarly journals Patient Rights to Participate in Treatment Decisions: Choice, Consultation and Knowledge

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-177
Author(s):  
Emma Cave ◽  
Nina Reinach
Keyword(s):  
Information Provision ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Patient Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Health Board ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Patient Status ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
The Right

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights supports the right to participate in decisions that affect our lives. Article 8 was a relevant factor in the Supreme Court decision of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] which makes significant advances in patient-centred care. Focusing on adult patients with capacity, this article considers Article 8's influence across three routes to participatory protection: the right to choose, the duty to consult, and the right to know. We set out current limitations of the right to choose and consider the potential for Article 8 to influence the extension of a wider duty to consult and right to know. We find that there are impediments to legal development. Patient status leads to the elevation of aspects of participation that do not always comply with patient needs and expectations. We consider a reimagining of our expectations of patient rights to better acknowledge the relevance of partnership between patients and professional experts and to extend information provision beyond informed consent.

Legislative Proposals for Reversing the Cancer Epidemic and Controlling Run-Away Industrial Technologies

2000 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 353-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel S. Epstein
Keyword(s):  
Food Production ◽  
Genetically Engineered ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Adverse Impacts ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
Legislative Proposals ◽  
Democratic Rights ◽  
Genetically Engineered Food ◽  
The Right

An interlocking legislative complex is proposed for the control of carcinogenic and other adverse impacts of established run-away petrochemical and radionuclear technologies, with particular reference to winning the losing war against cancer. These proposals are also applicable to the poorly recognized, potentially adverse public health and environmental hazards of emerging technologies, particularly genetically engineered food production. The proposals embody fundamental democratic rights—the right to know and balanced and transparent decision making—the “Precautionary Principle,” reduction in the use of toxics, incentives for the development of safe industrial technologies, and criminal sanctions for suppression or manipulation of information.

P–477 The child’s right to know vs. the parents’ right not to tell: the attitudes of couples undergoing fertility treatments towards identity-release gamete donation

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Simas ◽  
D Braga ◽  
A Setti ◽  
R Melamed ◽  
A Iaconell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Well Being ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Gamete Donation ◽  
Biological Origin ◽  
Gamete Donor ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Study question Do couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatments (ART) have a different perception of anonymous vs identity-release gamete donation than a population interested in the subject? Summary answer Compared with a population interested in the subject, more couples undergoing ART believed the child shouldn’t be given information that would identify the gamete-donor. What is known already Recent research has investigated the psychological well-being of parents and children born through gamete donation, focusing on the possibility of having the donor’s identity revealed. Gamete donors have traditionally been anonymous to recipients and offspring; however, there is a global trend towards programs using donors that are identifiable to the resulting offspring at maturity. While some countries only allow the use of identity-release egg donation, others only allow anonymous-donation, and in some countries both types of donation are practiced. However, the attitudes concerning anonymous vs identity-release gamete donation, in a country where only anonymous donation is allowed, are still unknown. Study design, size, duration This cross-sectional study was performed from 01/Sep/2020 to 15/Dec/2020. For that, surveys through online-platforms were conducted, including either patients undergoing ART, (ART-group, n = 358) or those interested in the subject, who accessed the website of a university-affiliated IVF-center (interested-group, n = 122). Participants in the ART-group were invited via e-mail, with a cover-letter outlining the survey and a link to access it and participants in the interested-group accessed the questionnaire via website. Participants/materials, setting, methods The survey collected information on demographic characteristics and the participant’s attitudes towards anonymity of gamete donors. The questions were: (i) In the case of children conceived through ART, do you believe that revealing the method of conception may affect the relationship between children and their parents? (ii) Once the method of conception is revealed, do you believe that the child has the right to know the gamete donor? (iii) If yes, when? Main results and the role of chance Most of the participants answered that the relationship between children and parents wouldn’t be affected by the child’s knowledge of the origin of their conception, regardless of the group (83.6% vs 82.7%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively, p = 0.868). Most participants in the ART-group answered that the sperm donor identity shouldn’t be revealed to the child, while only half of the interested-group stated the same (65.4% vs 50.8%, p = 0.044). The same result was observed when participants were asked if the oocyte donor should be identifiable (64.8% vs 50.8%, p = 0.050). When asked when the donor’s identity should be revealed to the child, no significant differences were noted in the responses among the groups (p = 0.868). Most of the participants who believe that the child has the right of learning the donor’s identity, stated that “the donor’s identity should be revealed if the child questions its biological origin” (67.2% vs 67.5%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively). “Since birth” was the second most common response, (21.0% vs 19.7%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively), while “when the child turns 18 years-old” (9.2% vs 11.2%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively), and “sometime during teenage years” (2.5% vs 2.4%, for ART-group and interested-group, respectively) were less common answers. Limitations, reasons for caution Lack of adequate opportunities to conduct face to face interview and lack of knowledge of the real state of the website participants, concerning infertility or being involved in ART. The retrospective nature of the study and the small sample size may also be reasons for caution, Wider implications of the findings: It has been discussed that, whether or not children or parents are harmed by knowing their biological origins, donor offspring have the right to know. However, when facing the situation, couples undergoing ART would argue that in case of gamete donation, there are reasons for not telling the child. Trial registration number Not applicable

The Right to Know Why

1926 ◽  
Vol 104 (23) ◽  
pp. 595-596
Author(s):  
A. W. Burr
Keyword(s):  
Right To Know ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
The Right

The Right to Know Genetic Origins: A Harmful Value

2014 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 5-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly Leighton
Keyword(s):  
Right To Know ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
Genetic Origins ◽  
The Right
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document