Regulating the New: A Consideration of CRISPR and Approaches to Professional Standards of Practitioners of Chinese Medicine in Australia and Accessing the NDIS

(2017) Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 14(2), 167-172

U. of Adelaide Law Research Paper No. 2018-112

Posted: 10 Sep 2018

See all articles by Bernadette Richards

Bernadette Richards

University of Adelaide - School of Law

Date Written: September 3, 2018

Abstract

Recent Developments in this edition takes a slightly different approach and, in three brief commentaries, focuses on the regulating of the Bnew. In Australia, the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency (AHPRA) oversees the registration and conduct of fourteen recognized categories and a relatively recent addition to the list of registered health practitioners is Chinese Medicine. Until recently there had been no action taken against this group. There has, however, now been a consideration of professionalism in this category and this is briefly noted here.

Another recent addition to the regulation of healthcare and support has been the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) which was trialled in 2013 and is subject to a planned national rollout (except for New South Wales) which commenced in 2016. As the system rolls out across the country, challenges to decisions regarding eligibility are emerging and two such challenges are summarized here in order to provide insight into the application of the new scheme. The third discussion shifts focus a little but continues in the vein of regulation of the Bnew.^ In this discussion, Professor Barry Furrow outlines the benefits and risks associated with the CRISPR-Cas9 tool of gene editing and provides insight in the recent Report of the National Institutes of Science, Engineering and Medicine (USA) which addresses the legal and ethical issues surrounding CRISPR. He concludes by asserting that we need a clear, national (and potentially international) regulatory framework to ensure safe and careful implementation of this form of testing.

Each of these three discussions is quite different and potentially narrow in scope as they consider domestic responses to specific issues. However, they all have broader international relevance as they address issues that arise in every jurisdiction: cultural diversity in the provision of healthcare, state support of the vulnerable members of society, and regulation of new and emerging technologies.

Keywords: K00, K30, K32, K39

JEL Classification: CRISPR, Gene editing, Patient safety: Professional standards, Financial sustainability, NDIS

Suggested Citation

Richards, Bernadette, Regulating the New: A Consideration of CRISPR and Approaches to Professional Standards of Practitioners of Chinese Medicine in Australia and Accessing the NDIS (September 3, 2018). (2017) Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 14(2), 167-172, U. of Adelaide Law Research Paper No. 2018-112, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3243420

Bernadette Richards (Contact Author)

University of Adelaide - School of Law ( email )

Adelaide, South Australia 5005
Australia

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
186
PlumX Metrics