Between Ethical Oversight and State Neutrality

Schlagworte

Bedenken biomedical law biotechnologies Biomedizinrecht Biotechnologien biotechnology law case studies Biotechnologierecht comparative law Deutschland comparison Einführung kontroverser Technologien England concerns constitutional law Ethik Ethiküberwachung ethics ethics oversight Fallstudien Germany Gesundheitssystem Italien health care system introduction of controversial technologies Legitimität Nicht-invasive Pränatale Tests Italy legitimacy NIPT PGD noninvasive prenatal testing Präimplantatorische Genetische Diagnose preimplantation genetic diagnosis Rechtsvergleichung religion state neutrality Religion staatliche Neutralität Verfassungsrecht Vergleich

• Bibliography
• Literature
• Aarden Erik, van Hoyweghen Ine, Horstman Klasien and others, ‘Learning from Co-evolution of Policy and Technology. Different PGDs in the Netherlands, Germany and Britain’ (2008) 10(2) Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 191–206.
• Aarden Erik, van Hoyweghen Ine, Vos Rein and others, ‘Providing Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands and Germany: A Comparative In-depth Analysis of Health Care Access’ (2009) 24(7) Human reproduction, 1542–1547.
• Agius Emmanuel and Busuttil Salvino (eds), Germ-Line Intervention and Our Responsibilities to Future Generations (Springer 1998).
• Ahdar Rex and Leigh Ian, Religious Freedom in the Liberal State (Oxford University Press 2005).
• Alexy Robert, The Argument from Injustice: A Reply to Legal Positivism (Oxford University Press 2010).
• Alghrani Amel and Purshouse Craig, ‘Damages for reproductive negligence: commercial surrogacy on the NHS?’ [2019](135) LQR, 405–411.
• Alicino Francesco, ‘Atheism and the Principle of Laïcité in France. A Shifting Process of Mutual Adaptation’ [2018](32) Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 1–27.
• Alicino Francesco, ‘Esercizi di laicità: Ovvero de-finire (giuridicamente) lo Stato laico’ [2008](January) Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 1–41.
• Allan Trevor R. S. Constitutional Justice (Oxford University Press 2003).
• Amitrano Zingale Margherita, ‘L'obiezione di coscienza nell'esercizio della funzione pubblica sanitaria’ [2015](3) Giur Cost, 1099–1120.
• Ammann Daniel, Medizinethik und medizinethische Expertengremien im Licht des öffentlichen Rechts: Ein Beitrag zur Lösung von Unsicherheiten im gesellschaftlichen Umgang mit lebenswissenschaftlichen Fragestellungen aus rechtswissenschaftlicher Perspektive (Duncker & Humblot 2012).
• Andorno Roberto, ‘Human Dignity and Human Rights as a Common Ground for a Global Bioethics’ (2009) 34(3) J Med Philos, 223–240.
• Andorno Roberto, ‘The Precautionary Principle: A New Legal Standard for a Technological Age’ (2004) 1(1) JIBL, 11–19.
• Antonelli Vincenzo, ‘La garanzia dei livelli essenziali di assistenza nei primi 40 anni del Servizio sanitario nazionale: dall’uniformità all’appropriatezza: efficacia non è dimostrabile in base alle evidenze scientifiche’ [2018](7) Federalismi, 1–23.
• Aperio Bella Flaminia, ‘Tecnologie innovative nel settore salute tra scarsità delle risorse e differenziazione: alla ricerca di un equilibrio difficile’ [2020](2) Federalismi, 245–268.
• Arcà Silvia and Cislaghi Cesare, ‘Percorsi metodologici per l'inserimento o l'esclusione di una prestazione dai Livelli essenziali di assistenza’ [2006](2) Tendenze nuove, 97–114.
• Aronson Mark, ‘Public law values in the common law’ in Elliott and Feldman, The Cambridge Companion to Public Law (Cambridge University Press 2015), 134-152.
• Asscher Eva C. A. ‘The Regulation of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) in the Netherlands and the UK: A Comparative Study of the Regulatory Frameworks and Outcomes for PGD’ (2008) 3(4) Clinical Ethics, 176–179.
• Atripaldi Mariangela, ‘Diritto alla salute e livelli essenziali di assistenza (LEA)’ [2017] Federalismi, 1–18.
• Attollino Simona, ‘La laicità della cura (a margine della sentenza del Consiglio di Stato n. 4460 del 2014 sulle direttive anticipate di trattamento)’ [2015](21) Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 1–19.
• Baertschi Bernard, ‘CRISPR-Cas9: l’interdiction de la thérapie génique germinale est-elle devenue inappropriée?’ (2017) 10(2) Bioethica Forum, 41–49.
• Balboni Enzo, ‘I livelli essenziali e i procedimenti per la loro determinazione: Nota a Sentenza n. 88/2003’ [2003](6) Le Regioni, 1183–1198.
• Baldini Gianni, ‘Considerazioni sulla diagnosi genetica pre impianto nell'evoluzione normativo-giurisprudenziale intervenuta’ in D'Amico and Liberali, La legge n. 40 del 2004 ancora a giudizio: La parola alla Corte costituzionale (F. Angeli 2012), 181-215.
• Balduzzi Renato (ed), La sanità italiana tra livelli essenziali di assistenza, tutela della salute e progetto di devolution: Atti del convegno, Genova, 24 febbraio 2003 (Giuffrè 2004).
• Balduzzi Renato and Paris Davide, ‘Corte costituzionale e consenso informato tra diritti fondamentali e ripartizione delle competenze legislative’ (2008) 53(6) Giur Cost, 4953–4970.
• Balestra Luigi, ‘Laicità e diritto civile’ (2008) 54(1) Rivista di Diritto Civile, 13–37.
• Barberis Mauro, ‘Eguaglianza, ragionevolezza e diritti’ [2013](1) Rivista di filosofia del diritto, 191–204.
• Bardon Aurelia, Birnbaum Maria, Lee Lois and others, ‘Introduction: Pluralism and Plurality.’ in Stoeckl and others, Religious Pluralism: A Resource Book (EUI 2015).
• Bassham Gregory, ‘Legislating Morality: Scoring the Hart-Devlin Debate after Fifty Years’ (2012) 25(2) Ratio Juris, 117–132.
• Beauchamp Tom L. and Childress James F. Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th edn, Oxford University Press 2019).
• Becker Ulrich and Kingreen Thorsten, SGB V: Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung Kommentar (7th edn. C.H. Beck 2020).
• Becker Ulrich, ‘Das Recht auf Gesundheitsleistungen,’ in Steiner and others, Nach geltendem Verfassungsrecht: Festschrift für Udo Steiner zum 70. Geburtstag (Boorberg 2009), 50-76.
• Becker Ulrich, ‘Rechtsdogmatik und Rechtsvergleich im Sozialrecht’ in Becker, Rechtsdogmatik und Rechtsvergleich im Sozialrecht I (Nomos 2010), 11-59.
• Beckmann Rainer, ‘Rechtsfragen der Präimplantationsdiagnostik’ (2001) 19(4) MedR, 169–177.
• Belletti Michele, ‘I "livelli essenziali delle prestazioni concernenti i diritti civili e sociali…" alla prova della giurisprudenza costituzionale. Alla ricerca del parametro plausibile’ [2003](3-4) Istituzioni del federalismo: rivista di studi giuridici e politici, 613–646.
• Bergo Monica, ‘I nuovi Livelli Essenziali di Assistenza. Al crocevia fra la tutela della salute e l'equilibrio di bilancio’ [2017](2) Rivista AIC, 1–25.
• Bergo Monica, ‘Il riconoscimento del diritto alla fecondazione eterologa e alla diagnosi preimpianto nel sistema italiano di “regionalismo sanitario”’ [2015](5) Giur Cost, 1738–1757.
• Bern Christina G. Genome Editing in Zeiten von CRISPR/Cas (Peter Lang 2020).
• Beta Jaroslaw, Lesmes-Heredia Cristina, Bedetti Chiara and others, ‘Risk of Miscarriage Following Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling: A Systematic Review of the Literature’ (2018) 70(2) Minerva Obstet Gynecol, 215–219.
• Beyleveld Deryck and Brownsword Roger, ‘Emerging Technologies, Extreme Uncertainty, and the Principle of Rational Precautionary Reasoning’ (2012) 4(1) Law Innov Technol, 35–65.
• Beyleveld Deryck and Brownsword Roger, Law as a Moral Judgment (Sweet & Maxwell 1986).
• Bhatia Neera, ‘Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14’ (2020) 17(4) Bioethical Inquiry, 455–460.
• Bieback Karl-Jürgen, ‘Zur Neubestimmung des Krankheitsbegriffs in der GKV’ (1978) 27(12) Sozialer Fortschritt, 265–272.
• Bobbio Norberto, Il futuro della democrazia (Einaudi 1984).
• Böckenförde Ernst W. Recht, Staat, Freiheit: Studien zur Rechtsphilosophie, Staatstheorie und Verfassungsgeschichte (Suhrkamp 2006).
• Böckenförde-Wunderlich Barbara, Präimplantationsdiagnostik als Rechtsproblem: Ärztliches Standesrecht, Embryonenschutzgesetz, Verfassung (Mohr Siebeck 2002).
• Bockenheimer-Lucius Gisela, Thorn Petra and Wendehorst Christiane (eds), Umwege zum eigenen Kind; Ethische und rechtliche Herausforderungen an die Reproduktionsmedizin 30 Jahre nach Louise Brown (Universitätsverlag Göttingen 2008).
• Bögershausen Mara R. Präimplantationsdiagnostik: Die verschiedenen Verfahren und ihre Zulässigkeit im deutschen Recht (Nomos 2016).
• Bolsinger Eckard, ‘Autonomie des Rechts?: Niklas Luhmanns soziologischer Rechtspositivismus — Eine kritische Rekonstruktion’ (2001) 42(1) Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 3–29.
• Bonney Norman, Monarchy, religion and the state: Civil religion in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and the Commonwealth (Manchester University Press 2013).
• Bornemann Elias, Die religiös-weltanschauliche Neutralität des Staates (Mohr Siebeck 2020).
• Brade Alexander and Tänzer Björn, ‘Präimplantationsdiagnostik vor dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht’ (2021) 40(14) NVwZ, 1037–1041.
• Bradney Anthony, ‘Religion and the Secular State in the United Kingdom’ in Martínez-Torrón, Durham and Thayer, Religion and the Secular State (Universidad Complutense de Madrid 2015).
• Bradney Anthony, ‘The United Kingdom. The Prevalence of Secularism’ in Nelis, Sägesser and Schreiber, Religion and Secularism in the European Union: State of Affairs and Current Debates (Peter Lang 2017).
• Bradney Anthony, Law and Faith in a Sceptical Age (Routledge 2009).
• Brassington Iain, ‘On the Relationship between Medical Ethics and the Law’ (2018) 26(2) Med Law Rev, 225–245.
• Braude Peter, Pickering Susan, Flinter Frances and others, ‘Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis’ (2002) 3(12) Nat Rev Genet, 941–953.
• Brauer Susanne, Strub Jean-Daniel, Bleisch Barbara and others, Wissen können, dürfen, wollen?: Genetische Untersuchungen während der Schwangerschaft (VDF 2016).
• Braun Kathrin and Könninger Sabine, ‘Realizing Responsibility.: Institutional Routines, Critical Intervention, and the “Big” Questions in the Controversy over Non-invasive Prenatal Testing in Germany’ (2017) 37(3) New Genetics and Society, 248–267.
• Brazier Margaret, ‘Regulating the reproduction business?’ (1999) 7(2) Med Law Rev, 166–193.
• Brownsword Roger and Goodwin Morag, ‘A Look at Procedural Legitimacy: The Role of Public Participation in Technology Regulation’ in Brownsword and Goodwin, Law and the Technologies of the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge University Press 2012), 246-268.
• Brownsword Roger and Wale Jeff, ‘Testing Times Ahead: Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing and the Kind of Community We Want to Be’ (2018) 81(4) Mod Law Rev, 646–672.
• Brownsword Roger and Wale Jeff, ‘The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know Revisited’ (2017) 9(1) Asian Bioeth Rev, 3–18.
• Brownsword Roger and Wale Jeff, ‘The Development of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing: Some Legal and Ethical Questions’ [2016](24) JRE, 31–48.
• Brownsword Roger, ‘Axiological Pluralism: Conflict in the Hospital, Resolution in the Courts’ in Busatta and Casonato, Axiological Pluralism (Springer 2021).
• Brownsword Roger, ‘Human Dignity, Ethical Pluralism, and the Regulation of Modern Biotechnologies’ in Murphy, New technologies and human rights (Oxford University Press 2009).
• Brownsword Roger, ‘Regulating The Life Sciences, Pluralism And The Limits Of Deliberative Democracy’ [2010](22) SAcLJ, 801–832.
• Brownsword Roger, ‘Reproductive Opportunities and Regulatory Challenges’ (2004) 67(2) Mod Law Rev, 304–321.
• Brownsword Roger, Rights, Regulation, and the Technological Revolution (Oxford University Press 2008).
• Brunelli Giuditta, ‘L’interruzione volontaria della gravidanza: come si ostacola l’applicazione di una legge (a contenuto costituzionalmente vincolato)’ in Brunelli, Pugiotto and Veronesi, Scritti in onore di Lorenza Carlassare. Il diritto costituzionale come regola e limite al potere (Jovene 2009), 815-873.
• Bucalo Maria E. and Giaimo Giuseppe, ‘Le sollecitazioni delle Corti e l’inerzia del legislatore in tema di suicidio assistito. Un confronto tra Italia e Inghilterra’ [2019](2), 171–197.
• Bunnik Eline M. Kater-Kuipers Adriana, Galjaard Robert-Jan H. and others, ‘Should Pregnant Women Be Charged for Non-invasive Prenatal Screening?: Implications for Reproductive Autonomy and Equal Access’ (2020) 46(3) J Med Ethics, 194–198.
• Bunnik Eline M. Kater-Kuipers Adriana, Galjaard Robert-Jan H. and others, ‘Why NIPT Should Be Publicly Funded’ (2020) 46(11) J Med Ethics, 783–784.
• Burch Leah, ‘A world without Down’s syndrome?: Online resistance on Twitter: #worldwithoutdowns and #justaboutcoping’ (2017) 32(7) Disability & Society, 1085–1089.
• Busatta Lucia, ‘BioLaw Facing Pluralisms: Three Simple Models for Complex Issues’ in Busatta and Casonato, Axiological Pluralism (Springer 2021), 9-32.
• Busatta Lucia, La salute sostenibile: La complessa determinazione del diritto ad accedere alle prestazioni sanitarie (G. Giappichelli 2018).
• Buyx Alena, ‘Kostenübernahme für pränatale Bluttests. Pro und Contra’ (2018) 115(44) Deutsches Ärzteblatt, A1988.
• Campbell Tom, ‘The Point of Legal Positivism’ [1998-1999](9) King's College Law Journal, 63–87.
• Cane Peter, ‘Taking Law Seriously: Starting Points of the Hart/Devlin Debate’ (2006) 10(1-2) J Ethics, 21–51.
• Canestrari Stefano, ‘Biodiritto (diritto penale)’ (2015) Annali VIII, Enc dir, 99–124.
• Carlino Francesco, ‘La selezione preimpianto tra autodeterminazione procreativa e tutela del diritto alla salute della donna: Nota a ord. Trib. Milano sez. I civ. 21 luglio 2017; ord. Trib. Milano sez. I civ. 18 aprile 2017’ (2018) 83(1) Responsabilità civile e previdenza, 229–247.
• Carpani Guido, ‘I piani di rientro tra emergenze finanziarie e l'equa ed appropriata erogazione dei LEA’ in Balduzzi, La sanità italiana alla prova del federalismo fiscale (Il mulino 2012).
• Carrato Aldo, ‘Diagnosi preimpianto: l'applicazione giurisprudenziale della sentenza n. 96/2015 della Consulta: Nota a ord. Trib. Milano sez. I civ. 18 aprile 2017’ [2017](6) Fam dir, 541–558.
• Cartabia Marta, ‘I principi di ragionevolezza e proporzionalità nella giurisprudenza costituzionale italiana.: Intervento presentato a: Incontro trilaterale tra la Corte costituzionale italiana, la Corte costituzionale spagnola e il Tribunale costituzionale portoghese, Roma.’ (2013) <https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/convegni_seminari/RI_Cartabia_Roma2013.pdf> accessed 14.7.2021.
• Carusi Donato, ‘La (imminente?) legge italiana sulla procreazione assistita: considerazioni nella propsettiva della ”bioetica laica”’ (2003) 34(2) Pol dir, 287–296.
• Casaburi Geremia, ‘Procreazione assistita: il Tribunale di Cagliari dà luce verde alla diagnosi preimpianto: Nota a Trib. Cagliari 22 settembre 2007’ [2008](3) Corr merito, 313–323.
• Casonato Carlo, ‘Bioetica e pluralismo nello stato costituzionale’ in Casonato and Piciocchi, Biodiritto in dialogo (CEDAM 2006), 7-34.
• Casonato Carlo, ‘Il caso Englaro: fine vita, il diritto che c'è’ [2009](1) Quaderni cost, 99–102.
• Casonato Carlo, ‘Il principio della volontarietà dei trattamenti sanitari fra livello statale e livello regionale: Nota a Sentenza n. 438/2008’ (2009) 37(3-4) Le Regioni, 627–650.
• Casonato Carlo, ‘Legge 40 e principio di non contraddizione: una valutazione d’impatto normativo’ in Camassa and Casonato, La Procreazione medicalmente assistita: Ombre e luci (Università degli studi di Trento 2005), 13-40.
• Casonato Carlo, ‘Sensibilità etica e orientamento costituzionale. Note critiche alla sentenza della Corte costituzionale n. 84 del 2016’ [2016](2) BioLaw Journal – Rivista di BioDiritto, 157–169.
• Casonato Carlo, ‘The Essential Features of 21st Century Biolaw’ in Valdés and Lecaros, Biolaw and Policy in the Twenty-First Century (Springer 2019), 77-91.
• Casonato Carlo, Introduzione al biodiritto (3rd edn, G. Giappichelli 2012).
• Castaing Cécile (ed), Technologies médicales innovantes et protection des droits fondamentaux des patients (Mare & Martin 2017).
• Castro Hector, Tringali Michele, Cleemput Irina and others, ‘Advancing MCDA and HTA into Coverage Decision-Making’ in Marsh and others, Multi-criteria Decision Analysis to Support Healthcare Decisions (Springer 2017), 119-146.
• Casuscelli Giuseppe, ‘Le laicità e le democrazie: la laicità della “Repubblica democratica” secondo la Costituzione italiana’ [2007](1) Quad dir e pol eccl, 169–202.
• Cavana Paolo, ‘Laicità dello Stato: da concetto ideologico a principio giuridico’ [2008](September) Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 1–15.
• Cavana Paolo, Interpretazioni della laicità: Esperienza francese ed esperienza italiana a confronto (AVE 1998).
• Cerioni Marta, ‘Stato e Regioni di fronte alla gestione dei Piani di rientro nei sistemi sanitari regionali in deficit’ [2017](1) Politiche Sociali, 175–180.
• Charlton Victoria, ‘NICE and Fair?: Health Technology Assessment Policy Under the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 1999–2018’ (2020) 28(3) Health Care Analysis, 193–227.
• Chianca Ilaria, ‘La responsabilità della p.a. per provvedimento illegittimo e risarcimento del danno non patrimoniale: la conclusione della vicenda Englaro’ [2017](2) Riv ital med leg dirit campo sanit, 816–824.
• Chico Victoria, ‘Wrongful Conception: Policy, Inconsistency and the Conventional Award’ (2007) 8(2) Med Law Int, 139–164.
• Chieffi Lorenzo, ‘Una bioetica attenta ai valori costituzionali’ [2019](4) Riv ital med leg dirit campo sanit, 1247–1259.
• Childress James F. ‘A Principle-based Approach’ in Kuhse and Singer, A Companion to Bioethics (2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell 2009), 67-76.
• Chitty Lyn S. Wright David, Hill Melissa and others, ‘Uptake, Outcomes, and Costs of Implementing Non-invasive Prenatal Testing for Down's Syndrome into NHS Maternity Care: Prospective Cohort Study in Eight Diverse Maternity Units’ (2016) 354(i3426) BMJ, 1–12.
• Choi Jinil, ‘A Study of the Slippery Slope Argument in Bioethics, and its Application to the Case of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis’ (2014) 7(2) Studia Bioethica, 31–37.
• Ciaurro Gian F. ‘Ordine del giorno’ (1980) XXX Enc dir, 1018–1038.
• Cicero Cristiano and Peluffo Emilia, ‘L'incredibile vita di Timothy Green e il giudice legislatore alla ricerca dei confini tra etica e diritto: Ovverosia, quando diventare genitori non sembra (apparire) più un dono divino’ [2014](4) Diritto di famiglia e delle persone, 1290–1318.
• Clarke Angus, ‘Genetic Counseling, Testing, and Screening’ in Kuhse and Singer, A Companion to Bioethics (2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell 2009), 245-259.
• Clementi Francesco, Cuocolo Lorenzo, Rosa Francesca and Vigevani Giulio E. La Costituzione italiana: Commento articolo per articolo (Il mulino 2017).
• Coady C.A.J. ‘Playing God’ in Savulescu and Bostrom, Human Enhancement (Oxford Univ. Press 2010).
• Colaianni Nicola, ‘Il principio supremo di laicità dello Stato e l' insegnamento della religione cattolica’ (1989) 5(1) Il Foro Italiano, 1333–1342.
• Colaianni Nicola, ‘La fine del confessionismo e la laicità dello Stato (il ruolo della Corte costituzionale e della dottrina)’ [2009](1) Pol dir, 45–92.
• Colaianni Nicola, ‘Trent’anni di laicità: Rileggendo la sentenza n. 203 del 1989 e la successiva giurisprudenza costituzionale’ [2020](21) Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 52–66.
• Commissione nazionale per la definizione e l’aggiornamento dei Livelli essenziali di assistenza, ‘I livelli di assistenza sanitaria e le prestazioni garantite dal Servizio sanitario nazional’ in Falcitelli and Langiano, La remunerazione delle attività sanitarie: Caratteristiche attuali e ipotesi evolutive (Il mulino 2007), 231-260.
• Conley Shannon N. ‘Who Gets to Be Born?: The Anticipatory Governance of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis Technology in the United Kingdom from 1978–2001’ (2020) 7(3) J Responsible Innov, 507–527.
• Constantinesco Léontin J. Rechtsvergleichung: Band 2: Die rechtsvergleichende Methode (Carl Heymann 1972).
• Conte Lucilla, ‘“And makes us rather bear those ills we have?” L’inizio della vita e i confini della sofferenza risarcibile (Nota a Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni Unite, n. 25767/2015)’ [2016](2) BioLaw Journal – Rivista di BioDiritto, 433–443.
• Cortese Fulvio and Penasa Simone, ‘Dalla bioetica al biodiritto: sulla giuridificazione di interessi scientificamente e tecnologicamente condizionati’ [2015](4) Rivista AIC, 1–34.
• Cortese Fulvio, ‘Costituzione e nuovi principi del diritto amministrativo’ (2020) 28(2) Dir Amm, 329–362.
• Costantini Maria P. Chamayou Sandrine and Guglielmino Antonino, ‘La diagnosi genetica di pre-impianto’ in D'Amico and Liberali, La legge n. 40 del 2004 ancora a giudizio: La parola alla Corte costituzionale (F. Angeli 2012), 216-247.
• Craig Paul, ‘Proportionality, Rationality and Review’ [2010](2) New Zealand Law Review, 265–301.
• Craig Paul, ‘Sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament after Factortame’ (1991) 11(1) Yearbook of European Law, 221–255.
• Craig Paul, ‘The Nature of Reasonableness Review’ (2013) 66(1) Curr Leg Probl, 131–167.
• Cranmer Frank, ‘'A Court of Law, Not of Morals?'’ (2008) 160(1) Law & Justice - The Christian Law Review, 13–24.
• Czermak Gerhard and Hilgendorf Eric, Religions- und Weltanschauungsrecht (Springer 2018).
• Czermak Gerhard, ‘„Gott“ im Grundgesetz?’ (1999) 52(18) NJW, 1300–1303.
• Czermak Gerhard, ‘Zur weltanschaulichen Schieflage des BVerfG in seiner 70-jährigen Geschichte’ (2022) 22(3) NJOZ, 33–38.
• Czermak Gerhard, Siebzig Jahre Bundesverfassungsgericht in weltanschaulicher Schieflage: Fälle, Strukturen, Korrekturmöglichkeiten (Nomos 2021).
• D'Agostino Francesco, ‘Il Forum: Bioetica e Costituzione’ [1996](1) Rivista di Diritto Costituzionale, 295–348.
• Dalla Torre Giuseppe, Il primato della conscienza: Laicità e libertà nell'esperienza giuridica contemporanea (Edizioni Studium 1992).
• D'Aloia Antonio, ‘Diritti e stato autonomistico. Il modello dei livelli essenziali delle prestazioni’ [2003](6) Le Regioni, 1063–1140.
• D'Aloia Antonio, ‘Il diritto di rifiutare le cure e la fine della vita. Un punto di vista costituzionale sul caso Englaro’ [2009](2) Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 370–395.
• Daly Paul, ‘Wednesbury’s Reason and Structure’ [2011](2) Public Law, 238–259.
• D'Amico Marilisa and Puccio Anna (eds), Laicità per tutti (Franco Angeli 2009).
• D'Amico Marilisa, ‘I diritti “contesi” fra laicità e fondamentalismi’ [2014](January) Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 1–13.
• D'Amico Marilisa, ‘Il concepito e il diritto a nascere sani: Profili costituzionali alla luce della decisione della Corte di Cassazione (n. 16754 del 2012)’ [2014](2) Rivista AIC, 1–8.
• D'Amico Marilisa, ‘La decisione della Corte costituzionale fra aspetti di principio e ricadute pratiche’ in D'Amico and Pellizzone, I diritti delle coppie infertili. Il limite dei tre embrioni e la sentenza della Corte costituzionale (Franco Angeli 2010), 214-225.
• Daniels Norman and Sabin James E. ‘Limits to Health Care: Fair Procedures, Democratic Deliberation, and the Legitimacy Problem for Insurers’ (1997) 26(4) Philosophy & Public Affairs, 303–350.
• Daniels Norman and Sabin James E. Setting Limits Fairly: Learning to Share Resources for Health (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2008).
• D'Arienzo Maria, ‘La laicità francese: “aperta”, “positiva” o “im-positiva”?’ [2011](December) Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 1–16.
• D'Arrigo Cosimo, ‘Salute (diritto alla)’ (2001) V Enc dir, 1009–1041.
• D'Avack Lorenzo, ‘La legge sulla procreazione medicalmente assistita: Un'occasione mancata per bilanciare valori ed interessi contrapposti in uno Stato laico’ (2004) 33(3-4) Diritto di famiglia e delle persone, 793–812.
• D'Avack Lorenzo, ‘L'ordinanza di Salerno: ambiguità giuridiche e divagazioni etiche’ (2010) 39(4) Dir fam, 1737–1760.
• De Francesco Daniela, ‘La diagnosi genetica preimpianto nell'evoluzione giurisprudenziale: Rassegna Giurisprudenziale’ [2016](8-9) Corr giur, 1151–1158.
• Deans Zuzana, Hill Melissa, Chitty Lyn S. and others, ‘Non-invasive Prenatal Testing for Single Gene Disorders: Exploring the Ethics’ (2013) 21(7) Eur J Hum Genet, 713–718.
• Dederer Hans-Georg, ‘Zur Straflosigkeit der Präimplantationsdiagnostik: Anmerkungen zu BGH, Urt. v. 6. 7. 2010 – 5 StR 386/09’ (2010) 28(12) MedR, 819–822.
• Del Bò Corrado, ‘Il rapporto tra laicità e neutralità: una questione concettuale?’ [2014](33) Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 1–19.
• Della Bella Silvia, ‘La svolta: il Tribunale di Cagliari e il Tribunale di Firenze ammettono la diagnosi preimpianto: Nota a Trib. Cagliari 24 settembre 2007, ord. Trib. Firenze 17 dicembre 2007’ [2008](5) Fam pers e succ, 426–437.
• Deuring Silvia, Rechtliche Herausforderungen moderner Verfahren der Intervention in die menschliche Keimbahn (Springer 2019).
• Di Cosimo Giovanni, ‘Quando il legislatore predilige un punto di vista etico/religioso: il caso del divieto di donazione dei gameti’ [2013](21) Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 1–18.
• Di Giovine Alfonso, ‘Stato liberale, Stato democratico e principio di laicità’ [2019](Speciale) Dir pubbl comp eur, 215–250.
• Di Marzio Paolo, ‘Bioetica cattolica e laica: una contrapposizione da superare’ (2002) 1(2) Dir fam, 101–111.
• Dicey Albert V. Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (Palgrave Macmillan 1979).
• Dindjer Hasan, ‘What Makes an Administrative Decision Unreasonable?’ (2021) 84(2) Mod Law Rev, 265–296.
• Dines Jennifer N. Eckel Ashley M. Cheng Edith Y. and others, ‘A Paradigm Shift: Considerations in Prenatal Cell-Free DNA Screening’ (2018) 2(5) Jrnl App Lab Med, 784–796.
• Dolcini Emilio, ‘Embrione, pre-embrione, ootide: nodi interpretativi nella disciplina della procreazione medicalmente assistita (L. 19 febbraio 2004 n. 40)’ (2004) 47(2) Riv it dir proc pen, 440–472.
• Dolcini Emilio, ‘Il punto sulla procreazione assistita: in particolare il problema della fecondazione eterologa’ (2013) 9(1) Corr merito, 5–10.
• Dolcini Emilio, ‘La legge n. 40 del 2004: alla prova dei fatti, un efficace strumento di lotta contro la procreazione assistita’ (2007) 3(12) Corr merito, 1425–1428.
• Dolcini Emilio, ‘Legge sulla procreazione assistita e laicità dello stato: da sempre, un rapporto difficile’ (2013) <https://archiviodpc.dirittopenaleuomo.org/d/2658-legge-sulla-procreazione-assistita-e-laicita-dello-stato-da-sempre-un-rapporto-difficile> accessed 14.4.2021.
• Domenici Irene and Günther Christian, ‘Judging Commercial Surrogacy and Public Policy: An Analysis of Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX (UK Supreme Court)’ [2020](2) BioLaw Journal – Rivista di BioDiritto, 373–386.
• Dorneck Carina, Das Recht der Reproduktionsmedizin de lege lata und de lege ferenda: Eine Analyse zum AME-FMedG (Nomos 2018).
• Dow Katharine, ‘Looking into the Test Tube: The Birth of IVF on British Television’ (2019) 63(2) Med Hist, 189–208.
• Dreier Horst, Bioethik: Politik und Verfassung (Mohr Siebeck 2013).
• Dreier Horst, Grundgesetz: Kommentar (3rd edn. Mohr Siebeck 2013).
• Dreier Horst, Staat ohne Gott: Religion in der säkularen Moderne (2nd edn, C.H. Beck 2018).
• Droege Michael, Staatsleistungen an Religionsgemeinschaften im säkularen Kultur- und Sozialstaat (Duncker & Humblot 2004).
• Drummond Michael F. Schwartz Sanford J. Jönsson Bengt and others, ‘Key Principles for the Improved Conduct of Health Technology Assessments for Resource Allocation Decisions’ (2008) 24(3) J of Inter Tech of Health Care, 244–258.
• Drury Suzanne, Hill Melissa and Chitty Lyn S. ‘Recent Developments in Non-Invasive Prenatal Diagnosis and Testing’ (2014) 25(3-4) Fet Matern Med Rev, 295–317.
• Dücker Sabrina M. Die Regelung der Präimplantationsdiagnostik in Deutschland und in England (Mohr Siebeck 2019).
• Durante Vincenzo, ‘La salute come diritto della persona’ in Canestrari and others, Trattato di biodiritto: Il governo del corpo (Giuffrè 2011), 579-600.
• Dürig Günter, Herzog Roman and Scholz Rupert, Grundgesetz: Kommentar (C.H. Beck 2021).
• Duttge Gunnar, ‘Wider den prinzipienvergessenen Zeitgeist bei der rechtsethischen Beurteilung der Präimplantationsdiagnostik’ (2014) 125(3) ZStW, 647–658.
• Düwell Marcus, Hübenthal Christoph and Werner Micha H. (eds), Handbuch Ethik (J.B. Metzler 2011).
• Dworkin Ronald, ‘Lord Devlin and the Enforcement of Morals’ (1966) 75(6) Yale LJ, 986–1005.
• Dworkin Ronald, Law's Empire (Belknap Press 1986).
• Eberbach Wolfram, ‘Eine kurze Geschichte der Fortpflanzungsmedizin bis zur Eizellspende’ (2020) 38(3) MedR, 167–179.
• Elliott Mark and Thomas Robert, Public Law (Oxford University Press 2020).
• Elliott Mark, ‘Legislative supremacy in a multidimensional constitution’ in Elliott and Feldman, The Cambridge Companion to Public Law (Cambridge University Press 2015), 73-95.
• El-Toukhy Tarek, Williams Clare and Braude Peter, ‘The Ethics of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis’ (2008) 10(1) The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, 49–54.
• Epping Volker and Hillgruber Christian, Grundgesetz Kommentar (3rd edn. Beck 2020).
• Evans Martyn, ‘What is a Person?’ in Have and Gordijn, Bioethics in a European Perspective (Springer 2001), 141-155.
• Falletti Elena, ‘Costi dell'accesso alla diagnosi preimpianto: alcune riflessioni giuridiche: Nota a ord. Trib. Vercelli sez. lav. 15 ottobre 2018; sent. Trib. Vercelli 20 dicembre 2018’ [2019](11) Giurisprudenza Italiana, 2393–2402.
• Fateh-Moghadam Bijan, ‘Bioethische Diskurse zwischen Recht, Ethik und Religion. Juristische Perspektiven – Zum Einfluss der Religion in bioethischen Beratungsgremien’ in Voigt, Religion in bioethischen Diskursen: Interdisziplinäre, internationale und interreligiöse Perspektiven (De Gruyter 2010), 31-64.
• Fateh-Moghadam Bijan, Die religiös-weltanschauliche Neutralität des Strafrechts: Zur strafrechtlichen Beobachtung religiöser Pluralität (Mohr Siebeck 2019).
• Fattibene Rosanna, ‘La diagnosi genetica preimpianto dalla sentenza della Corte costituzionale all’ordinanza del giudice comune. Ed il legislatore?: Considerazioni, a prima lettura, sull’ord. Tr. Milano, sez. I civ. depositata il 18 aprile 2017.’ [2017](2) BioLaw Journal – Rivista di BioDiritto, 209–229.
• Fattori Gabriele, ‘Il rovesciamento giurisprudenziale delle norme in materia di procreazione medicalmente assistita. Interpretazione evolutiva e dilemma contromaggioritario’ [2015](1) Quad dir e pol eccl, 143–171.
• Faulkner Alex and Poort Lonneke, ‘Stretching and Challenging the Boundaries of Law: Varieties of Knowledge in Biotechnologies Regulation’ (2017) 55(2) Minerva, 209–228.
• Feinberg Joel (ed), The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law Volume 4: Harmless Wrongdoing (Oxford University Press 1990).
• Ferrajoli Luigi, ‘Diritti fondamentali e bioetica. La questione dell'embrione’ in Rodota, Zatti and Tallacchini, Trattato di Biodiritto: Ambito e fonti del biodiritto (Giuffre 2011).
• Ferrando Gilda, ‘Autonomia delle persone e intervento pubblico nella riproduzione assistita. Illegittimo il divieto di fecondazione eterologa’ (2014) 30(9) La Nuova Giurisprudenza Civile Commentata, 393–408.
• Ferrara Rosario, ‘Il caso Englaro innanzi al Consiglio di Stato’ (2015) 2(1) La Nuova Giurisprudenza Civile Commentata, 9–12.
• Ferrara Rosario, ‘Il diritto alla salute: i principi costituzionali’ in Rodota, Zatti and Ferrara, Trattato di biodiritto: Salute e sanità (Giuffrè 2011).
• Finocchiaro Francesco, ‘Alle origini della laicità statale’ (2002) 113(4) Dir eccl, 1257–1285.
• Fiore Carlo, ‘Incitamento a pratiche contro la procreazione’ (1971) XXI Enc dir, 19–28.
• Fletcher George P. ‘Law and Morality: A Kantian Perspective’ (1987) 87(3) Colum L Rev, 533–558.
• Folliero Maria C. ‘Multiculturalismo e aconfessionalità: Le forme odierne del pluralismo e della laicità’ [2007](March) Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 1–18.
• Forni Lorenza, La laicità nel pensiero dei giuristi italiani: Tra tradizione e innovazione (Giuffrè 2010).
• Forsthoff Ernst, ‘Begriff und Wesen des sozialen Rechtsstaates’ [1953](12) VVDStRL, 8–33.
• Foster Charles and Miola José, ‘Who's in Charge?: The Relationship Between Medical Law, Medical Ethics, and Medical Morality’ (2015) 23(4) Med Law Rev, 505–530.
• Foster Charles, ‘Simple Rationality?: The Law of Healthcare Resource Allocation in England’ (2007) 33(7) J Med Ethics, 404–407.
• Fovargue Sara and Bennett Rebecca, ‘What Role Should Public Opinion Play in Ethico-Legal Decision Making? The Example of Selecting Sex for Non-Medical Reasons Using Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis’ (2016) 24(1) Med Law Rev, 34–58.
• Franklin Sarah, ‘Developmental Landmarks and the Warnock Report: A Sociological Account of Biological Translation’ (2019) 61(4) Comp Stud Soc Hist, 743–773.
• Freiherr von Ulmenstein Ulrich, ‘Tagungsbericht: Nicht-invasive Pränataldiagnostik als GKV-Leistung? – Medizinische, ethische und rechtliche Fragen’ (2018) 36(9) MedR, 680–681.
• Friele Minou, ‘Striving for Harmonisation and Living Without it’ in Vöneky and others, Legitimation ethischer Entscheidungen im Recht: Interdisziplinäre Untersuchungen (Springer 2009), 331-351.
• Frischhut Markus, ‘“EU”: Short for “Ethical” Union? The Role of Ethics in European Union Law’ (2015) 75(3) ZaöRV, 531–577.
• Frister Helmut and Lehmann Maja C. ‘Die gesetzliche Regelung der Präimplantationsdiagnostik’ (2012) 67(13) JZ, 659–667.
• Frister Helmut, ‘Der lange Weg zur Regelung der Präimplantationsdiagnostik’, Wissenschaftsrecht und Wissenschaftspraxis (Nomos 2014).
• Frommel Monika, ‘Die Neuregelung der Präimplantationsdiagnostik durch § 3a Embryonenschutzgesetz’ (2013) 68(10) JZ, 488–495.
• Fumagalli Roberto, ‘Slipping on Slippery Slope Arguments’ (2020) 34(4) Bioethics, 412–419.
• Fündling Caroline, Recht auf Wissen vs. Recht auf Nichtwissen in der Gendiagnostik (Nomos 2017).
• Furkel Francoise, ‘The Principle of Dignity in Germany and Its Irradiating Effect with Regard to Biomedicine’ in Feuillet-Liger and Orfali, The Reality of Human Dignity in Law and Bioethics (Springer 2018), 39-58.
• Gadsbøll Kasper, Petersen Olav B. Gatinois Vincent and others, ‘Current Use of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Europe, Australia and the USA: A Graphical Presentation’ (2020) 99(6) Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 722–730.
• Gassner Ulrich M. Kersten Jens, Krüger Matthias and others (eds), Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetz Augsburg-Münchner-Entwurf (AME-FMedG) (Mohr Siebeck 2013).
• Gentilomo Andrea and Piga Antonella, ‘La procreazione tra natura e cultura: alcune osservazioni sulla nuova legge in tema di procreazione medicalmente assistita’ (2004) 26(1) Riv it med leg, 41–74.
• Giacomini Mita, ‘One of These Things is Not Like the Others: The Idea of Precedence in Health Technology Assessment and Coverage Decisions’ (2005) 83(2) Milbank Q, 193–223.
• Giacomini Mita, Miller Fiona and Browman George, ‘Confronting the Gray Zones of Technology Assessment: Evaluating Genetic Testing Services for Public Insurance Coverage in Canada’ (2003) 19(2) Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 301–316.
• Gil M. M. Revello R. Poon L. C. and others, ‘Clinical Implementation of Routine Screening for Fetal Trisomies in the UK NHS: Cell-free DNA Test Contingent on Results from First-trimester Combined Test’ (2016) 47(1) Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 45–52.
• Giubilei Andrea, ‘I LEA nella giurisprudenza amministrativa e costituzionale: il caso della fecondazione eterologa’ in Colapietro and others, I modelli di welfare sanitario tra qualità e sostenibilità: Esperienze a confronto (Editoriale scientifica 2018), 385-402.
• Glennon Theresa, ‘Regulation of Reproductive Decision-making’ in Sclater, Ebtehaj and Richards, Regulating autonomy: Sex, reproduction and family (Hart 2009), 149-168.
• Goffin Tom, Borry Pascal, Dierickx Kris and others, ‘Why eight EU Member States Signed, but Not Yet Ratified the Convention for Human Rights and Biomedicine’ (2008) 86(2-3) Health Policy, 222–233.
• Gomez David, ‘The Special Status of the Human Embryo in the Regulation of Assisted Conception and Research in the United Kingdom’ (2011) 17(1) Medico-Legal Journal of Ireland, 6–18.
• Goodhart C. B. ‘Embryo experiments’ (1988) 297(6651) BMJ, 782–783.
• Goodman Clifford S. HTA 101 Introduction to Health Technology Assessment (National Library of Medicine 2014).
• Goodwin Mark and Bates Stephen, ‘The ‘Powerless Parliament’?: Agenda-setting and the Role of the UK Parliament in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008’ (2016) 11(2) Br Polit, 232–255.
• Gordon Michael, Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK Constitution: Process, Politics and Democracy (Hart 2015).
• Gorgoni Antonio, ‘Il diritto alla diagnosi preimpianto dell'embrione: Nota a Trib. Cagliari 24 settembre 2007’ [2008](7) Fam pers e succ, 605–619.
• Gorman Gráinne S. McFarland Robert, Stewart Jane and others, ‘Mitochondrial Donation: From Test Tube to Clinic’ (2018) 392(10154) Lancet, 1191–1192.
• Graf Tilman, Ethik und Moral im Grundgesetz. Grenzen der Moralisierung des Verfassungsrechts (Duncker & Humblot 2017).
• Grandi Federica, ‘Questioni di coscienza del pubblico potere: risvolti costituzionali dell'infedeltà/inosservanza dell'amministrazione’ [2016](3) Giur Cost, 1289–1304.
• Greely Henry T. ‘CRISPR’d Babies: Human Germline Genome Editing in the ‘He Jiankui Affair’’ (2019) 6(1) J Law Biosci, 111–183.
• Gregorowius Daniel, ‘Human Genome Editing and the Need for Regulation and Deliberation’ (2017) 10(2) Bioethica Forum, 71–73.
• Grunwald Armin, ‘The Normative Basis of (Health) Technology Assessment and the Role of Ethical Expertise’ (2004) 2(2-3) Poiesis Prax, 175–193.
• Gruschke Daniel, ‘Externe und interne Ethisierung des Rechts’ in Vöneky and others, Ethik und Recht - Die Ethisierung des Rechts/Ethics and Law - The Ethicalization of Law (Springer 2013).
• Gutmann Thomas, ‘Rechtliche und rechtsphilosophische Fragen der Präimplantationsdiagnostik’ in Gethmann and Huster, Recht und Ethik in der Präimplantationsdiagnostik (Brill/Fink 2010), 61-102.
• Gyngell Christopher, Douglas Thomas and Savulescu Julian, ‘The Ethics of Germline Gene Editing’ (2017) 34(4) J Appl Philos, 498–513.
• Häberle Peter, ‘Grundrechte im Leistungstaat’ [1972](30) VVDStRL, 43–141.
• Habermas Jürgen, Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur: Auf dem Weg zu einer liberalen Eugenik? (Suhrkamp 2001).
• Hagedorn Cornelia, Legitime Strategien der Dissensbewältigung in demokratischen Staaten (Springer 2013).
• Haker Hille, Hauptsache gesund?: Ethische Fragen der Pränatal- und Präimplantationsdiagnostik (Kösel 2011).
• Hammond-Browning Natasha, ‘Ethics, Embryos, and Evidence: A Look Back at Warnock’ (2015) 23(4) Med Law Rev, 588–619.
• Handyside A. H. Kontogianni E. H. Hardy K. and others, ‘Pregnancies from Biopsied Human Preimplantation Embryos Sexed by Y-specific DNA Amplification’ (1990) 344(6268) Nature, 768–770.
• Hart Herbert L. A. ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’ (1958) 71(4) Harv L Rev, 593.
• Hart Herbert L. A. The Concept of Law (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2012).
• Harvey John C. ‘André Hellegers, the Kennedy Institute, and the Development of Bioethics: The American–European Connection’ in Garrett, Jotterand and Ralston, The Development of Bioethics in the United States (Springer 2013), 37-54.
• Have Henk ten, ‘Ethical Perspectives on Health Technology Assessment’ (2004) 20(1) Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 71–76.
• Hehr Andreas, Frister Helmut, Fondel Sabine and others, ‘Präimplantationsdiagnostik’ (2014) 26(4) Medizinische Genetik, 417–426.
• Heinig Hans M. ‘Schlusswort – Verschleierte Neutralität’ (2010) 65(7) JZ, 357–360.
• Heinig Hans M. ‘Verschärfung der oder Abschied von der Neutralität?: Zwei verfehlte Alternativen in der Debatte um den herkömmlichen Grundsatz religiös-weltanschaulicher Neutralität’ (2009) 64(23) JZ, 1136–1140.
• Heinrichs Bert, Spranger Tade M. and Tambornino Lisa, ‘Ethische und rechtliche Aspekte der Pränataldiagnostik’ (2012) 30(10) MedR, 625–630.
• Herling David, ‘Weight in Discretionary Decision-Making’ (1999) 19(4) Oxf J Leg Stud, 583–604.
• Hermerén Göran, ‘Accountability, Democracy, and Ethics Committees’ (2015) 1(2) Law Innov Technol, 153–170.
• Hermes Benjamin, Die Ethikkommissionen für Präimplantationsdiagnostik (LIT 2017).
• Herring Jonathan, Medical Law and Ethics (Oxford University Press 2020).
• Heun Werner, ‘Menschenwürde und Lebensrecht als Maßstäbe für PID?: Dargestellt aus verfassungsrechtlicher Sicht’ in Gethmann and Huster, Recht und Ethik in der Präimplantationsdiagnostik (Brill/Fink 2010), 103-127.
• Hilgendorf Eric, ‘Stufungen des vorgeburtlichen Lebens- und Würdeschutzes’ in Gethmann and Huster, Recht und Ethik in der Präimplantationsdiagnostik (Brill/Fink 2010), 175-188.
• Hill Melissa, Wright David, Daley Rebecca and others, ‘Evaluation of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) for Aneuploidy in an NHS Setting: A Reliable Accurate Prenatal Non-invasive Diagnosis (RAPID) Protocol’ (2014) 14(229) BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 1–10.
• Höfling Wolfram, ‘Zur hoheitlichen Kunstförderung – Grundrechtliche Direktiven für den „neutralen. Kulturstaat“’ [1985](10) DÖV, 387–396.
• Hofmann Bjørn M. ‘Why Ethics Should Be Part of Health Technology Assessment’ (2008) 24(4) Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 423–429.
• Huber Franziska and Lindner Josef F. ‘Die Rechtsprechung der Verwaltungsgerichte zur Praeimplantationsdiagnostik (PID)’ (2020) 135(12) DVBl, 796–799.
• Huber Franziska and Lindner Josef F. ‘Rechtsschutz gegen ein negatives PID-Votum der Ethikkommission nach §3a Abs. 3 Nr. 2 ESchG’ (2016) 34(7) MedR, 502–506.
• Huber Franziska, ‘Rechtliche Aspekte der nicht-invasiven Pränataltests in Deutschland’ in Steger, Orzechowski and Schochow, Pränatalmedizin: Ethische, juristische und gesellschaftliche Aspekte (Karl Alber 2018), 144-167.
• Hübner Marlis and Pühler Wiebke, ‘Das Gendiagnostikgesetz – Bilanz und Ausblick’ in Katzenmeier and Ratzel, Festschrift für Franz-Josef Dahm (Springer 2017), 243-259.
• Hübner Marlis and Pühler Wiebke, ‘Systematische Rechtsentwicklung für die Reproduktionsmedizin’ (2017) 35(12) MedR, 929–935.
• Hufen Friedhelm, ‘Individuelle Rechte und die Zulassung der Präimplantationsdiagnostik’ in Gethmann and Huster, Recht und Ethik in der Präimplantationsdiagnostik (Brill/Fink 2010), 129-153.
• Hufen Friedhelm, ‘Präimplantationsdiagnostik aus verfassungsrechtlicher Sicht’ (2001) 19(9) MedR, 440–451.
• Hufen Friedhelm, ‘Verfassungsrechtliche Bedenken gegen frühe Pränataldiagnostik?’ (2017) 35(4) MedR, 277–282.
• Huster Stefan and Schramme Thomas, ‘Normative Aspekte der staatlichen Gesundheitsfürsorge’ in Huster and Schramme, Normative Aspekte von Public Health (Nomos 2016).
• Huster Stefan, ‘Anmerkung: BVerfG, Beschluss v. 6. 12. 2005 – 1 BvR 347/98’ (2006) 61(9) JZ, 466.
• Huster Stefan, ‘Bioethik und Biorecht: Symbiose oder Konflikt?’ in Albers, Bioethik, Biorecht, Biopolitik: Eine Kontextualisierung (Nomos 2016).
• Huster Stefan, ‘Der Gemeinsame Bundesausschuss als Ethikbehörde?’ (2017) 35(4) MedR, 282–286.
• Huster Stefan, ‘Die Bedeutung des Krankheitsbegriffs für das Krankenversicherungsrecht’ in Beck, Krankheit und Recht (Springer 2017), 41-51.
• Huster Stefan, ‘Die Leistungspflicht der GKV für Maßnahmen der künstlichen Befruchtung und der Krankheitsbegriff’ (2009) 62(24) NJW, 1713–1716.
• Huster Stefan, ‘Erwiderung: Neutralität ohne Inhalt?’ (2010) 65(7) JZ, 354–357.
• Huster Stefan, ‘Gleichheit durch Gleichgültigkeit? Die ethische Neutralität des Staates und die Regulierung der modernen Medizin’ in Kopetzki and others, Körper-Codes: Moderne Medizin, individuelle Handlungsfreiheiten und die Grundrechte (Linde 2010), 9-32.
• Huster Stefan, ‘Kriterien einer medizinischen Grundversorgung im Sozialstaat’ in Brune, Lang and Werner, Konzepte normativer Minimalstandards (Nomos 2016).
• Huster Stefan, ‘Liberalismus, Neutralität und Fundamentalismus: über verfassungsrechtliche und sozialphilosophische Grenzen rechtlicher Verbote und Regulierungen in der Gentechnologie und in der modernen Medizin’ in Brockmöller, Ethische und strukturelle Herausforderungen des Rechts, Referate der 2 Tagung der Initiative Junger Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler aus den Bereichen Rechtsphilosophie, Rechtstheorie und Rechtssoziologie (Franz Steiner Verlag 1997), 9-25.
• Huster Stefan, ‘Non-invasive Prenatal Diagnostics (NIPD) in the System of Medical Care: Ethical and Legal issues’ (2021) 49(8) J Perinat Med, 1–7.
• Huster Stefan, Die ethische Neutralität des Staates (2nd edn, Mohr Siebeck 2017).
• Huxtable Richard, ‘Logical Separation?: Conjoined Twins, Slippery Slopes and Resource Allocation’ (2010) 23(4) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 459–471.
• Iacobucci Gareth, ‘Non-invasive Prenatal Testing: Public and Doctors Should be Consulted, says BMA’ (2018) 362(k2916) BMJ, 1.
• Iadicicco Maria P. ‘Finalmente una decisione del giudice delle leggi sulla diagnosi genetica preimpianto, in attesa del doveroso intervento del legislatore’ [2015](3) Giur Cost, 797–805.
• Iadicicco Maria P. ‘La diagnosi genetica preimpianto nella giurisprudenza italiana ed europea: L'insufficienza del dialogo tra le Corti’ [2015](2) Quaderni cost, 325–350.
• Iadicicco Maria P. ‘La lunga marcia verso l'effettività e l'equità nell'accesso alla fecondazione eterologa e all'interruzione volontaria di gravidanza’ [2018](1) Rivista AIC, 1–60.
• Iagnemma Caterina, ‘Diagnosi genetica preimpianto: problemi aperti in rapporto alla sentenza della Corte costituzionale n. 229/2015’ [2016](1) Riv ital med leg dirit campo sanit, 317–338.
• Iannicelli Maria A. ‘Diagnosi genetica preimpianto e coppie fertili portatrici di malattie genetiche trasmissibili: il giudice di merito applica la sentenza della Corte cost. n. 96/2015: Nota a ord. Trib. Milano sez. I civ. 18 aprile 2017; ord. Trib. Milano sez. I civ. 21 luglio 2017’ [2018](1) Corr giur, 52–63.
• Iannicelli Maria A. ‘Diagnosi genetica preimpianto: battute finali della 'riscrittura costituzionale' della l. n. 40/2004’ (2016) 33(2) Corr giur, 188–205.
• Ip Eric C. ‘Taking a 'Hard Look' at 'Irrationality': Substantive Review of Administrative Discretion in the US and UK Supreme Courts’ (2014) 34(3) Oxf J Leg Stud, 481–510.
• Jackson Emily, ‘Regulating Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing: the view from the UK’ [2014](50) Japanese Journal of Law and Political Science, 9–23.
• Jackson Emily, ‘Statutory Regulation of PGD: Unintended Consequences and Future Challenges’ in McLean and Elliston, Regulating Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis: A Comparative and Theoretical Analysis (Routledge 2012), 71-88.
• Jasanoff Sheila (ed), Reframing rights: Bioconstitutionalism in the genetic age (MIT Press 2011).
• Jasanoff Sheila and Metzler Ingrid, ‘Borderlands of Life: IVF Embryos and the Law in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany’ (2020) 45(6) Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1001–1037.
• Jasanoff Sheila, Designs on Nature (Princeton University Press 2005).
• Joerden Jan C. and Uhlig Carola, ‘Vorgeburtliches Leben – rechtliche Überlegungen zur genetischen Pränataldiagnostik’ in Steger, Ehm and Tchirikov, Pränatale Diagnostik und Therapie in Ethik, Medizin und Recht (Springer 2014), 93-110.
• Johnson Martin H. and Petersen Kerry, ‘Instruments for ART Regulation: What are the Most Appropriate Mechanisms for Achieving Smart Regulation?’ in Sclater, Ebtehaj and Richards, Regulating autonomy: Sex, reproduction and family (Hart 2009), 169-195.
• Jones Caroline, ‘The Department of Health Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990’ (2006) 1(4) Clinical Ethics, 200–204.
• Jones Peter, ‘The Ideal of the Neutral State’ in Goodin and Reeve, Liberal Neutrality (Routledge 1989), 9-38.
• Joschko Annabel C. Das Recht auf Nichtwissen in der Gesundheitsversorgung (Duncker & Humblot 2022).
• Juth Niklas, ‘Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: Ethical Aspects’, Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (John Wiley & Sons 2012).
• Kamm Frances M. ‘Moral Status and Personal Identity: Clones, Embryos and Future Generations’ (2005) 22(2) Soc Phil Pol, 283–307.
• Kant Immanuel, Metaphysic of Morals: Divided into Metaphysical Elements of Law and of Ethics (Richardson 1799).
• Karbarz Małgorzata, ‘Technical and Ethical Limits in Prenatal and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis’ in Soniewicka, The Ethics of Reproductive Genetics (Springer 2018).
• Kelsen Hans, General Theory of Law and State (The Lawbook Exchange 2009).
• Kemper James M. Gyngell Christopher and Savulescu Julian, ‘Subsidizing PGD: The Moral Case for Funding Genetic Selection’ (2019) 16(3) Bioethical Inquiry, 405–414.
• Kersten Jens, ‘„Strategien veralteten Rechts“. Zur demokratischen Unterversorgung des Biomedizin- und Gesundheitsrechts’ in Rixen, Die Wiedergewinnung des Menschen als demokratisches Projekt: Neue Demokratietheorie als Bedingung demokratischer Grundrechtskonkretisierung in der Biopolitik (Mohr Siebeck 2015), 111-135.
• Kersten Jens, ‘Präimplantationsdiagnostik und Grundgesetz – Ausblendung, Instrumentalisierung und Respektierung des Verfassungsrechts -’ in Rosenau, Ein zeitgemäßes Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetz für Deutschland (Nomos 2013), 97-125.
• Kersten Jens, ‘Regulierungsauftrag für den Staat im Bereich der Fortpflanzungsmedizin’ (2018) 37(17) NVwZ, 1248–1254.
• Kingreen Thorsten, ‘Der Gemeinsame Bundesausschuss vor dem BVerfG: Das Tor liegt in der Luft!’ (2017) 35(1) MedR, 8–14.
• Kingreen Thorsten, ‘Verfassungsrechtliche Grenzen der Rechtsetzungsbefugnis des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses im Gesundheitsrecht’ (2006) 59(13) NJW, 877–880.
• Kmietowicz Zosia, ‘Commission Invites Discussion on the Future of Genetics in Reproduction’ (2004) 329(7459) BMJ, 192.
• Korený Peter, ‘From a Tolerant to an Ethically Neutral State’ (2016) 26(2) Human Affairs, 409.
• Körner Anne, Leitherer Stephan and Mutschler Bernd, Kasseler Kommentar: Sozialversicherungsrecht (C.H. Beck 2021).
• Koyuncu Adem, ‘Tort Law and Public Health’ in Kirch, Encyclopedia of Public Health (Springer 2008), 1397-1401.
• Kreß Hartmut, ‘Grenzziehung für Ethikkommissionen’ (2021) 39(1) MedR, 1–7.
• Kreß Hartmut, ‘Präimplantationsdiagnostik in der pluralistischen Gesellschaft im Licht des Toleranzgebots.: Mit kritischen Bemerkungen zu den Befugnissen der PID-Ethikkommissionen.’ in Geis, Winkler and Bickenbach, Von der Kultur der Verfassung: Festschrift für Friedhelm Hufen zum 70. Geburtstag (C.H. Beck 2015), 43-52.
• Kreß Hartmut, ‘Präimplantationsdiagnostik und Fortpflanzungsmedizin angesichts des ethischen Pluralismus.: Rechtspolitische Gesichtspunkte nach dem Urteil des BGH.’ (2010) 43(7) ZFR, 201–205.
• Kreß Hartmut, Ethik der Rechtsordnung: Staat, Grundrechte und Religionen im Licht der Rechtsethik (Kohlhammer 2012).
• Kreßner Maximilian, Gesteuerte Gesundheit: Grund und Grenzen verhaltenswissenschaftlich informierter Gesundheitsförderung und Krankheitsprävention (Nomos 2019).
• Kubiciel Michael, ‘Grund und Grenzen des Verbots der Präimplantationsdiagnostik’ (2013) 33(7) NStZ, 382–386.
• Kudlich Hans, ‘An den Grenzen von Naturwissenschaft und Strafrecht – Strafrechtliche Fragen der Präimplantationsdiagnostik: Keine Strafbarkeit nach §§ 1 Nr. 2, 2 ESchG durch die Durchführung präimplantationsdiagnostischer Untersuchungen (an nicht totipotenten) Zellen und anschließendes Absterbenlassen kranker Embryonen’ (2010) 42(11) Juristische Arbeitsblätter, 833–835.
• La Rosa Stefania, ‘La diagnosi genetica preimpianto: un problema aperto’ [2011](8-9) Fam dir, 839–951.
• Lakin Stuart, ‘Debunking the Idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty: The Controlling Factor of Legality in the British Constitution’ (2008) 28(4) Oxf J Leg Stud, 709–734.
• Landwehr Charlotte, ‘Anmerkung zu BSG, Urt. V. 18.11.2014 – B 1 KR 19/13 R (LSG Bad.-Württ.)’ (2017) 35(2) MedR, 161–164.
• Landwehr Charlotte, Rechtsfragen der Präimplantationsdiagnostik (Springer 2017).
• Latronico Nicola, Manenti Ottavia, Baini Luca and others, ‘Quality of Reporting on the Vegetative State in Italian Newspapers: The case of Eluana Englaro’ (2011) 6(4) PloS one, e18706.
• Laufs Adolf, Kern Bernd-Rüdiger and Rehborn Martin , Handbuch des Arztrechts (5th edn. C.H. Beck 2019).
• Lecaros Juan A. ‘Biolaw and Bioethics: Convergences and Divergences’ in Valdés and Lecaros, Biolaw and Policy in the Twenty-First Century (Springer 2019), 93-118.
• Leonhard Bettina, ‘Krankenkasse muss Kosten für PID nicht übernehmen’ [2013](4) RdLh, 214–215.
• Leyland Peter and Anthony Gordon, Textbook on Administrative Law (8th edn, Oxford University Press 2016).
• Liberali Benedetta, ‘La diagnosi genetica preimpianto fra interpretazioni costituzionalmente conformi, disapplicazione della legge n. 40 del 2004, diretta esecuzione delle decisioni della Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo e questioni di legittimità costituzionale’ [2014](2) Rivista AIC.
• Liberali Benedetta, Problematiche costituzionali nelle scelte procreative: Riflessioni intorno alla fecondazione medicalmente assistita e all'interruzione volontaria di gravidanza (Giuffrè 2017).
• Liddell Kathleen and Ravenscroft Simon, ‘Morality, Religion, and Patents’ in Berg, Cholij and Ravenscroft, Patents on Life (Cambridge University Press 2019), 25-37.
• Liddell Kathleen, Biolaw and Deliberative Democracy: Regulating Human Genetic Technology in a Morally Pluralist Society (2003).
• Lindner Josef F. ‘Ein zeitgemäßes Fortpflanzungsmedizinrecht für Deutschland’ (2019) 52(6) ZFR, 171–174.
• Lindner Josef F. ‘Fällt der “PraenaTest” in den Anwendungsbereich des §15 GenDG?’ (2013) 31(5) MedR, 288–291.
• Lo Dennis Y. M. Corbetta Noemi, Chamberlain Paul F. and others, ‘Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum’ (1997) 350(9076) Lancet, 485–487.
• Lock David and Gibbs Hannah, NHS Law and Practice (Legal Action Group 2018).
• Lord Steyn, ‘Perspectives Of Corrective And Distributive Justice In Tort Law’ [2002](37) Irish Jurist, 1–15.
• Lucchi Nicola, The Impact of Science and Technology on the Rights of the Individual (Springer 2016).
• Luce Bryan R. Drummond Michael, Jönsson Bengt and others, ‘EBM, HTA, and CER: Clearing the confusion’ (2010) 88(2) Milbank Q, 256–276.
• Lucivero Federica, Ethical Assessments of Emerging Technologies: Appraising the Moral Plausibility of Technological Visions (Springer 2016).
• Lugarà Roberta, ‘L'abbandono dei LEA alle Regioni: il caso della procreazione medicalmente assistita’ [2015](1) Rivista AIC, 1–8.
• Luhmann Niklas, ‘Law As a Social System’ (1989) 83(1&2) Northwestern University Law Review, 136–150.
• Luhmann Niklas, ‘Operational Closure and Structural Coupling: The Differentiation of the Legal System’ (1992) 13(5) Cardozo Law Review, 1419–1442.
• Luhmann Niklas, Das Recht der Gesellschaft (Suhrkamp 1995).
• Luhmann Niklas, Law as a Social System (Oxford University Press 2004).
• Luhmann Niklas, Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie (Suhrkamp 1984).
• Lungstras Anne B. Der Umgang mit dem Embryo in vitro: Eine Analyse der berzeugungsstrategien in der verfassungsrechtlichen Debatte um die embryonale Stammzellenforschung und die Prĩmplantationsdiagnostik (Nomos 2008).
• Lynch Andrew, ‘The Constitutional Significance of the Church of England’ in Radan, Meyerson and Croucher, Law and Religion: God, the State and the Common Law (Routledge 2005), 155-181.
• Macklin Ruth, ‘Personhood in the Bioethics Literature’ (1983) 61(1) The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly Health and Society, 35.
• Magill Gerard, ‘Catholicism’ in Have and Gordijn, Handbook of Global Bioethics (Springer 2014), 352-373.
• Manetti Michela, ‘Profili di illegittimità costituzionale della legge sulla procreazone medicalmente assistita’ [2004](3) Pol dir, 453–466.
• Mangoldt Hermann v. Klein Friedrich and Starck Christian, Grundgesetz: Kommentar (7th edn. Beck 2018).
• Mannino Armando and Curreri Salvatore, Diritto parlamentare (F. Angeli 2019).
• Marmor Andrei (ed), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law (Routledge 2012).
• Marmor Andrei, ‘Legal Positivism: Still Descriptive and Morally Neutral’ (2006) 26(4) Oxf J Leg Stud, 683–704.
• Marmor Andrei, Law in the Age of Pluralism (Oxford University Press 2007).
• Marneffe Peter de, ‘Neutrality’ in Mandle and Reidy, The Cambridge Rawls Lexicon (Cambridge University Press 2014).
• Martens Wolfgang, ‘Grundrechte im Leistungsstaat’ [1972](30) VVDStRL, 8–42.
• Martin Nick, ‘Liberal Neutrality and Charitable Purposes’ (2012) 60(4) Political Studies, 936–952.
• Martinelli Claudio, ‘La laicità come neutralità’ [2007](April) Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 1–7.
• Martire Dario, ‘Giurisprudenza costituzionale e rime obbligate: il fine giustifica i mezzi? Note a margine della sentenza n. 113 del 2020 della Corte costituzionale’ [2020](6) Rivista AIC, 244–259.
• Mason Andrew D. ‘Autonomy, Liberalism and State Neutrality’ (1990) 40(161) The Philosophical Quarterly, 433–452.
• Mason Anne, ‘Does the English NHS have a ‘Health Benefit Basket’?’ (2005) 6(S1) Eur J Health Econ, 18–23.
• Mastropietro Barbara, ‘Procreazione assistita: considerazioni critiche su una legge controversa’ (2005) 34(4) Dir fam, 1379–1420.
• Materia Enrico, ‘Appropriatezza: Origini, implicazioni, valutazione’ [2003](4-5) Tendenze nuove, 343–354.
• McHale Jean V. and Fox Marie, Health Care Law: Text and Materials (2nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2007).
• McLean Sheila A. M. ‘Law, Ethics and Health Care’ in Ashcroft and others, Principles of Health Care Ethics (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2007), 193-198.
• McLean Sheila A. M. and Mason John K. ‘Assisted Reproduction’ in McLean and Mason, Legal and Ethical Aspects of Healthcare (Cambridge University Press 2009), 99-118.
• McLean Sheila A. M. and Mason John K. ‘Resources – Who Decides?’ in McLean and Mason, Legal and Ethical Aspects of Healthcare (Cambridge University Press 2009), 15-28.
• McLean Sheila A. M. ‘De-Regulating Assisted Reproduction: Some Reflections’ (2006) 7(3) Med Law Int, 233–247.
• McMillan Catriona A. W. The Human Embryo In Vitro: Breaking the Legal Stalemate (Cambridge University Press 2021).
• Medizinrechtsausschuss, ‘Stellungnahme des Deutschen Anwaltvereins durch den Medizinrechtsauschuss zu den Gesetzentwürfe zur Präimplantationsdiagnostik’ [2011](2) Zeitschrift für das gesamte Medizin- und Gesundheitsrecht, 71–73.
• Meola Franca, ‘La diagnosi genetica preimpianto nell’evoluzione dell’ordinamento italiano: gli argomenti a favore’ in Fattibene, La diagnosi genetica preimpianto tra normativa e giurisprudenza (Editoriale scientifica 2017), 79-125.
• Mertens Anja, ‘Gendiagnostik nicht auf Kassenkosten’ (2015) 18(12) G+G, 44–45.
• Michaels Ralf, ‘The Functional Method of Comparative Law’ in Reimann, Zimmermann and Michaels, The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (Oxford University Press 2006), 338-382.
• Milani Daniela, ‘«Veluti si Deus daretur»: la legge n. 40 del 2004 sulla procreazione medicalmente assistita dal dibattito parlamentare all’articolato’ (2015) 23(1) Quad dir e pol eccl, 117–142.
• Molaschi Viviana, ‘Sulla determinazione dei livelli essenziali delle prestazioni: riflessioni sulla vis expansiva di una 'materia'.’ [2003](5) Sanità Pubblica e Privata, 525–542.
• Molaschi Viviana, ‘Withdrawal of Artificial Hydration and Nutrition from a Patient in a Permanent Vegetative State in Italy.: Some Considerations on the 'Englaro' Case’ [2012](1) Italian Journal of Public Law, 122–158.
• Montesano Stefano, ‘Dalla laicità dello Stato alla laicità per lo Stato.: Il paradigma laico tra principio e valore’ [2017](36) Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 1–37.
• Montgomery Jonathan, ‘Bioethics after Brexit: An Opportunity to Rationalize Bioethics Governance in the United Kingdom’ (2018) 18(2-3) Med Law Int, 135–156.
• Montgomery Jonathan, ‘Bioethics as a Governance Practice’ (2016) 24(1) Health Care Anal, 3–23.
• Montgomery Jonathan, ‘Law and the Demoralisation of Medicine’ (2006) 26(2) Legal stud, 185–210.
• Montgomery Jonathan, ‘Rights, Restraints and Pragmatism: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990’ (1991) 54(4) Mod Law Rev, 524–534.
• Montgomery Jonathan, ‘The British Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ in Palazzani, Role and Functions of Bioethics Committees (Comitato Nazionale per la Bioetica 2014), 49-64.
• Montgomery Jonathan, Jones Caroline and Biggs Hazel, ‘Hidden Law-Making in the Province of Medical Jurisprudence’ (2014) 77(3) Mod Law Rev, 343–378.
• Moore Alfred, ‘Public Bioethics and Deliberative Democracy’ (2010) 58(4) Political Studies, 715–730.
• Morana Donatella, La salute come diritto costituzionale: Lezioni (3rd edn, Giappichelli 2018).
• Morelli Alessando, ‘La voce del silenzio. La decisione della Corte sull’aiuto al suicidio e il «perdurare dell’inerzia legislativa»’ [2020](1) Dirittifondamentaliit, 724–737.
• Morrone Andrea, ‘Verso un'amministrazione democratica. Sui principi di imparzialità, buon andamento e pareggio di bilancio’ [2019](2) Dir Amm, 381–412.
• Moss Kate and Hughes Rowland, ‘Hart–Devlin Revisited: Law, Morality and Consent in Parenthood’ (2011) 51(2) Med Sci Law, 68–75.
• Müller Markus, ‘Neutralität als Verfassungsgebot?: Der Staat und religiöse oder weltanschauliche Überzeugungen’ [2022](81) VVDStRL, 251–382.
• Müller-Terpitz Ralf, Der Schutz des pränatalen Lebens (Mohr Siebeck 2007).
• Münch Ingo v. and Kunig Philip, Grundgesetz: Kommentar (7th edn. C.H. Beck 2021).
• Münkler Laura, Expertokratie (Mohr Siebeck 2020).
• Munthe Christian, ‘A New Ethical Landscape of Prenatal Testing: Individualizing Choice to Serve Autonomy and Promote Public Health: A Radical Proposal’ (2015) 29(1) Bioethics, 36–45.
• Nardocci Costanza, ‘Dalla Convenzione alla Costituzione: la tacita sintonia tra le Corti. A margine di Corte cost. sent. n. 96 del 2015.’ [2016](1) BioLaw Journal – Rivista di BioDiritto, 271–281.
• Neri Demetrio, ‘Embryo editing: a proposito di una recente autorizzazione dell’HFEA’ [2016](1) BioLaw Journal – Rivista di BioDiritto, 261–269.
• Neri Demetrio, ‘Può la bioetica non essere laica?’ (1996) XXII(41-42) Notizie di Politeia, 33–38.
• Nettesheim Martin, ‘Die Garantie der Menschenwürde zwischen metaphysischer Überhöhung und bloßem Abwägungstopos’ (2005) 130(1) AöR, 71–113.
• Netzer Christian, ‘Führt uns die Primplantationsdiagnostik auf eine Schiefe Ebene?’ (1998) 10(3) Ethik in der Medizin, 138–151.
• Newdick Christopher, ‘Health Care Rights and NHS Rationing: Turning Theory into Practice’ (2014) 32(2) Revista Portuguesa de Saúde Pública, 151–157.
• Newdick Christopher, ‘Judicial Review: Low-priority treatment and exceptional case review’ (2007) 15(2) Med Law Rev, 236–244.
• Newdick Christopher, ‘Promoting Access and Equity in Health: Assessing the National Health Service in England’ in Flood and Gross, The Right to Health at the Public/Private Divide (Cambridge University Press 2014), 107-128.
• Newdick Christopher, ‘Rebalancing the Rationing Debate: Tackling the Tensions Between Individual and Community Rights’ in Nagel and Lauerer, Prioritization in Medicine: An International Dialogue (Springer 2016), 123-140.
• Newdick Christopher, ‘Solidarity, Rights and Social Welfare in the NHS – Resisting the Tide of Bioethics?’ (2008) 27(3) Medicine and Law, 547–562.
• Newdick Christopher, ‘The Positive Side of Healthcare Rights’ in McLean, First Do No Harm (Routledge 2016), 573-586.
• Newdick Christopher, Who Should We Treat? Rights, Rationing, and Resources in the NHS (Oxford University Press 2005).
• Nobles Richard and Schiff David, ‘Introduction’ in Luhmann Niklas, Law as a Social System (Oxford University Press 2004), 1-52.
• Nolan Dolan and Davies John, ‘Torts and Equitable Wrongs’ in Burrows, English Private Law (Oxford University Press 2013), 927-1030.
• O’Cinneide Colm, ‘Equality: A Core Common Law Principle, or ‘Mere’ Rationality?’ in Elliott and Hughes, Common Law Constitutional Rights (Hart Publishing 2020), 167-192.
• O'Halloran Kerry, State Neutrality (Cambridge University Press 2021).
• Onida Francesco, ‘Il problema dei valori nello stato laico’ (1995) 3(1) Dir eccl, 672–686.
• Onida Francesco, ‘Il problema dei valori nello stato laico’ in Tedeschi, Il principio di laicità nello stato democratico (Rubbettino 1996).
• Paladin Livio, ‘Ragionevolezza (principio di)’ (1997) Aggiornamento I, Enc dir, 899–911.
• Palazzani Laura, Dalla bio-etica alla tecno-etica: Nuove sfide al diritto (Giappichelli 2017).
• Palm Wolfgang, Öffentliche Kunstförderung zwischen Kunstfreiheitsgarantie und Kulturstaat (Duncker & Humblot 1998).
• Palmer Elizabeth, ‘Resource Allocation, Welfare Rights—Mapping the Boundaries of Judicial Control in Public Administrative Law’ (2000) 20(1) Oxf J Leg Stud, 63–88.
• Palmer Ellie, ‘Mechanisms of Health Care Accountability, Marketisation and the Elusive State’ (2011) 11(1) Med Law Int, 69–92.
• Parisi Marco, ‘Ateismo, neutralità dell'istruzione pubblica e pluralismo delle opzioni formative’ [2011](1) Quad dir e pol eccl, 127–146.
• Patroni Griffi Andrea, ‘Il bilanciamento nella fecondazione assistita tra decisioni politiche e controllo di ragionevolezza’ [2015](3) Rivista AIC, 1–31.
• Patzke Jelena M. Die gesetzliche Regelung der Präimplantationsdiagnostik auf dem Prüfstand - § 3a ESchG (Nomos 2020).
• Pellegrini Laura, ‘I livelli essenziali di assistenza in un ordinamento decentrato’ in Balduzzi, La sanità italiana tra livelli essenziali di assistenza, tutela della salute e progetto di devolution: Atti del convegno, Genova, 24 febbraio 2003 (Giuffrè 2004), 11-19.
• Pellizzone Irene, ‘Fecondazione assistita e interpretazione costituzionalmente conforme. Quando il fine non giustifica i mezzi’ [2008](1) Giur Cost, 537–564.
• Pellizzone Irene, ‘L’accesso delle coppie fertili alla diagnosi genetica preimpianto dopo la sentenza 96 del 2015: le condizioni poste dalla Corte costituzionale’ [2015] Forum di Quaderni Costituzionali.
• Penasa Simone, ‘Alla ricerca dell'anello mancante: il deposito dello strumento di ratifica della Convenzione di Oviedo’ (2007) Forum di Quaderni Costituzionali <https://www.forumcostituzionale.it/wordpress/images/stories/pdf/documenti_forum/paper/0007_penasa.pdf> accessed 25.4.2022.
• Penasa Simone, ‘Converging by Procedures: Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation within the European Union’ (2012) 12(3-4) Med Law Int, 300–327.
• Penasa Simone, ‘La sentenza n. 96 del 2015 della Corte costituzionale: l'insostenibile debolezza della legge 40’ [2015](3) Quaderni cost, 755–758.
• Penasa Simone, ‘Regulating ART. The Rise of a (Common?) 'Procedure-Oriented' Approach within EU’ (2012) 12(1) Global Jurist, 1–21.
• Penasa Simone, ‘The Italian regulation on Assisted Reproductive Technologies facing the European Court of Human Rights: the case of Costa and Pavan v. Italy’ [2012](37) Revista de derecho y genoma humano, 155–178.
• Perrone Roberto, Buon costume e valori costituzionali condivisi: Una prospettiva della dignità umana (Editoriale scientifica 2015).
• Perrot Adeline and Horn Ruth, ‘Preserving Women's Reproductive Autonomy While Promoting the Rights of People with Disabilities?: The Case of Heidi Crowter and Maire Lea-Wilson in the Light of NIPT Debates in England, France and Germany’ [2022](0) J Med Ethics, 1–4.
• Perrot Adeline and Horn Ruth, ‘The Ethical Landscape(s) of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing in England, France and Germany: Findings from a Comparative Literature Review’ (2022) 30 Eur J Hum Genet, 676–681.
• Pesaresi Elena, ‘La "determinazione dei livelli essenziali delle prestazioni" e la materia " tutela della salute": la proiezione indivisible di un concetto unitario di cittadinanza nell'era del decentramento instituzionale’ (2006) 51(2) Giur Cost, 1733–1764.
• Pestalozza Christian, ‘Eine späte und mißliche Geburt: Die Verordnung zur Regelung der Präimplantationsdiagnostik’ (2013) 31(6) MedR, 343–350.
• Peters Ted, Playing God?: Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom (2nd edn, Routledge 2003).
• Piciocchi Cinzia, ‘Bioethics and Law: Between Values and Rules’ (2005) 12(2) IJGLS, 471–482.
• Pin Andrea, ‘Il percorso della laicità ”all’italiana”. Dalla prima giurisprudenza costituzionale al Tar veneto: una sintesi ricostruttiva’ [2006](1) Quad dir e pol eccl, 203–230.
• Pinelli Cesare, ‘Sui "livelli essenziali delle prestazioni concernenti i diritti civili e sociali" (art. 117, co. 2, lett. m, Cost.)’ [2002](3) Dir pubbl, 881–908.
• Pioggia Alessandra, ‘Questioni di bioetica nell'organizzazione delle strutture sanitarie’ [2008](2) Dir pubbl, 407–444.
• Pioggia Alessandra, Diritto sanitario e dei servizi sociali (Giappichelli 2014).
• Pomiato Roberto, ‘Diagnosi preimpianto e tutela dell'embrione: un equilibrio ancora precario’ [2016](1) Europa e diritto privato, 219–248.
• Poscher Ralf, ‘The Hand of Midas: When Concepts Turn Legal, or Deflating the Hart-Dworkin Debate’ in Hage and Pfordten, Concepts in Law (Springer 2009), 99-115.
• Poscher Ralf, ‘Was Juristen besser können als Ethiker: Ein interdisziplinäres Argument für die gerichtliche Kontrolle von Ethikkommissionen’ in Vöneky and others, Ethik und Recht - Die Ethisierung des Rechts/Ethics and Law - The Ethicalization of Law (Springer 2013), 433-441.
• Potter Van Rensselaer, ‘Bioethics, the Science of Survival’ (1970) 14(1) Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 127–153.
• Potter Van Rensselaer, Bioethics: Bridge to the Future (Prentice-Hall 1971).
• Priaulx Nicky, ‘That’s One Heck of an “Unruly Horse”: Riding Roughshod over Autonomy in Wrongful Conception’ (2004) 12(3) Feminist Legal Stud, 317–331.
• Priaulx Nicolette, ‘Joy to the World! A (Healthy) Child is Born! Reconceptualizing 'Harm' in Wrongful Conception’ (2004) 13(1) Soc Leg Stud, 5–26.
• Purdy Laura M. ‘Assisted Reproduction, Prenatal Testing, and Sex Selection’ in Kuhse and Singer, A Companion to Bioethics (2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell 2009), 178-192.
• Rambotti Simone, ‘Narratives of a Dying Woman: Contentious Meaning at the End of Life’ (2017) 3(3) Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 1–12.
• Randazzo Barbara, ‘La Corte «apre» al giudizio di uguaglianza tra confessioni religiose?’ (1998) 43(3) Giur Cost, 1843–1867.
• Randazzo Barbara, ‘Le laicità’ [2008](October) Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 1–65.
• Raposo Vera L. and Osuna Eduardo, ‘European Convention of Human Rights and Biomedicine’ in Beran, Legal and Forensic Medicine (Springer 2013).
• Ratzinger Joseph C. and Bovone Alberto, ‘Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day Vatican City 1987’ (2018) 54(2) The Linacre Quarterly, 24–49.
• Rauprich Oliver, ‘Sollen Kinderwunschbehandlungen von den Krankenkassen finanziert werden? Ethische und rechtliche Aspekte’ in Bockenheimer-Lucius, Thorn and Wendehorst, Umwege zum eigenen Kind; Ethische und rechtliche Herausforderungen an die Reproduktionsmedizin 30 Jahre nach Louise Brown (Universitätsverlag Göttingen 2008), 31-48.
• Rauprich Oliver, Die Kosten des Kinderwunsches: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven zur Finanzierung reproduktionsmedizinischer Behandlungen (LIT 2012).
• Rauschning Dietrich, ‘Staatsaufgabe Umweltschutz’ [1979](38) VVDStRL, 168–205.
• Ravitsky Vardit, ‘The Shifting Landscape of Prenatal Testing: Between Reproductive Autonomy and Public Health’ (2017) 47(Suppl 3) Hastings Cent Rep, S34-S40.
• Ravitsky Vardit, Roy Marie-Christine, Haidar Hazar and others, ‘The Emergence and Global Spread of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing’ (2021) 22(1) Annu Rev Genom Hum Genet, 309–338.
• Rawls John, ‘The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus’ (1987) 7(1) Oxf J Leg Stud, 1–25.
• Rawls John, Political Liberalism (Expanded ed. Columbia University Press 2005).
• Rehmann-Sutter Christoph and Schües Christina, ‘Die NIPT-Entscheidung des G-BA. Eine ethische Analyse’ (2020) 32(4) Ethik Med, 385–403.
• Reitter Antonia, Rechtspaternalismus und Biomedizinrecht: Schutz gegen den eigenen Willen im Transplantationsgesetz, Arzneimittelgesetz und Embryonenschutzgesetz (Duncker & Humblot 2020).
• Repetto Giorgio, ‘Non di sola Cedu … La fecondazione assistita e il diritto alla salute in Italia e in Europa’ [2013](1) Dir pubbl, 131–165.
• Reuzel Rob, Oortwijn Wija, Decker Michael and others, ‘Ethics and HTA: Some Lessons and Challenges for the Future’ (2004) 2(2-3) Poiesis Prax, 247–256.
• Richardson Henry S. ‘Specifying, Balancing, and Interpreting Bioethical Principles’ (2000) 25(3) J Med Philos, 285–307.
• Richter-Kuhlmann Eva, ‘Nicht invasive Pränataldiagnostik: Es geht um mehr als nur Geld’ (2019) 116(16) Deutsches Ärzteblatt, A774-A778.
• Rimoli Francesco, ‘Laicità, postsecolarismo, integrazione dell'estraneo: una sfida per la democrazia pluralista’ [2006](2) Dir pubbl, 335–374.
• Risicato Lucia, ‘Laicità e principi costituzionali’ [2008](June) Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 1–25.
• Rivera Ilaria, ‘La comparazione giuridica nel concetto di 'salute': possibili scenari evolutivi alla luce della giurisprudenza costituzionale e sovranazionale’ (2017) 39(1) Riv it med leg, 117–129.
• Rivers Julian, ‘The Right to Religious Liberty in English Law’ in Durham and others, Law, Religion, Constitution: Freedom of religion, equal treatment, and the law (Routledge 2013), 285-301.
• Rivers Julian, ‘The Secularisation of the British Constitution’ (2012) 14(3) Eccles Law J, 371–399.
• Rivers Julian, The Law of Organized Religions: Between Establishment and Secularism (Oxford University Press 2010).
• Rixen Stephan, ‘Das Grundrecht auf glaubenskonforme Gewährung von Sozialleistungen – Zugleich ein Beitrag zu den Leistungsgrundrechten des Grundgesetzes –’ (2018) 133(14) DVBl, 906–915.
• Rizzo Maria L. ‘Il consenso informato come strumento per l’implementazione etica dei test genetici non invasivi per la diagnosi prenatale’ [2018](3) BioLaw Journal – Rivista di BioDiritto, 225–240.
• Robertson Andrew, ‘Constraints on Policy-based Reasoning in Private Law’ in Robertson and Tang, The Goals of Private Law (Hart Publishing 2009), 261-280.
• Rodotà Stefano, Perché laico (Editori Laterza 2010).
• Rogers William V. H. Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (18th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2010).
• Rolfes Vasilija, ‘Abwägungsprozesse im Vorfeld der (neuen) nicht-invasiven Pränataltestung (NIPT)’ in Jox, Marckmann and Rauprich, Vom Konflikt zur Lösung (Brill | mentis 2016), 315-324.
• Rolfes Vasilija, ‘Aspekte der Gerechtigkeit in der pränatalen Diagnostik am Beispiel der nicht invasiven pränatalen Tests’ in Steger, Orzechowski and Schochow, Pränatalmedizin: Ethische, juristische und gesellschaftliche Aspekte (Karl Alber 2018), 52-67.
• Rolfs Christian, Giesen Richard, Kreikebohm Ralf and others, BeckOK Sozialrecht (61st edn. C.H. Beck 2021).
• Romboli Roberto, ‘Il giudizio di ragionevolezza: la nozione e le diverse stagioni della stessa attraverso la giurisprudenza costituzionale’ [2019](1) Revista de la Sala Constitucional, 20–35.
• Rosenau Henning (ed), Ein zeitgemäßes Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetz für Deutschland (Nomos 2013).
• Rosenfeld Michel and Sajó András (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press 2012).
• Rostalski Frauke, Das Natürlichkeitsargument bei biotechnologischen Maßnahmen (Duncker & Humblot 2019).
• Rudisill John P. ‘The Neutrality of the State and Its Justification in Rawls and Mill’ (2000) 23(2) Auslegung: a Journal of Philosophy, 153–168.
• Rudolph Enno, ‘Neutralität – eine unverzichtbare Norm von begrenzter Tauglichkeit’ (2021) 54(4) KJ, 435–439.
• Rüffer Corinna, ‘Kostenübernahme für pränatale Bluttests. Pro und Contra’ (2018) 114(44) Deutsches Ärzteblatt, A1989.
• Ruso Berit and Thöni Magdalena, ‘Quo vadis Präimplantationsdiagnostik?’ (2010) 28(2) MedR, 74–78.
• Russa Raffaella, Rocco Valerio V. Fazio Nicola and others, ‘Consenso informato e dat (disposizioni anticipate di trattamento): Momento legislativo innovativo nella storia del biodiritto in italia’ (2018) 83(1) Responsabilità civile e previdenza, 353–366.
• Sachs Michael, Grundgesetz: Kommentar (9th edn. C.H. Beck 2021).
• Salanitro Ugo, ‘A strange loop. La procreazione assistita nel canone della corte costituzionale’ [2020](1) Nuove leg civ comm, 206–219.
• Salazar Carmela M. G. ‘«Guerra» e «pace» nel rapporto Corte-Parlamento: Riflessioni su pecche e virtù delle additive «di principio» quali atte a rimediare alle «omissioni incostituzionali del legislatore»’ in Ruggeri and Silvestri, Corte costituzionale e parlamento: Profili problematici e ricostruttivi (Giuffrè 2000), 253-279.
• Sales Philip, ‘Rationality, proportionality and the development of the law’ (2013) 129(2) LQR, 223–241.
• Salvatore Barbara, ‘La recente legge sul consenso informato. Un passo in avanti in tema di responsabilità medica per violazione degli obblighi informativi?’ [2018](3) Riv ital med leg dirit campo sanit, 993–1008.
• Sanfilippo Paola, ‘Dal 2004 al 2014: lo sgretolamento necessario della legge sulla procreazione medicalmente assistita’ [2014](3-4) Diritto Penale Contemporaneo, 376–394.
• Sanfilippo Paola, ‘La riscrittura giurisprudenziale della legge n. 40/2004: una caso singolare di eterogenesi dei fini’ (2015) 58(2) Riv it dir proc pen, 851–879.
• Santosuosso Amedeo, ‘Sulla conclusione del caso Englaro’ (2009) 3(2) La Nuova Giurisprudenza Civile Commentata, 127–136.
• Santosuosso Amedeo, Goodenough Oliver R. and Tomasi Marta (eds), The Challenge of Innovation inLlaw: The Impact of Technology and Science on Legal Studies and Practice (Pavia University Press 2015).
• Scaccia Gino, ‘Controllo di ragionevolezza delle leggi e applicazione della costituzione’ in Cerri, La ragionevolezza nella ricerca scientifica ed il suo ruolo specifico nel sapere giuridico: Atti del convegno di studi 2-4 ottobre 2006, Aula Betti, Facoltà di giurisprudenza, Università degli studi di Roma La Sapienza (Aracne 2007), 287-302.
• Scalera Antonio, ‘Il problema della diagnosi pre-impianto: Nota a: Tribunale Cagliari, 09 novembre 2012’ (2013) 45(5) Giurisprudenza di Merito, 1020–1037.
• Scheffer Urban, ‘Zur Zukunft der Präimplantationsdiagnostik in Deutschland’ (2011) 20(1) ZfL, 9–15.
• Schlaich Klaus, Neutralität als verfassungsrechtliches Prinzip: Vornehmlich im Kulturverfassungs- und Staatskirchenrecht (Mohr 1972).
• Schmitz Dagmar, ‘Ethische Herausforderungen der neuen nichtinvasiven Pränataltestung’ (2016) 49(6) Gynäkologe, 442–447.
• Schmitz Dagmar, ‘Why Public Funding for Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) Might Still Be Wrong: A Response to Bunnik and Colleagues’ (2020) 46(11) J Med Ethics, 781–782.
• Schneider Susanne, ‘Auf dem Weg zur gezielten Selektion - Strafrechtliche Aspekte der Präimplantationsdiagnostik’ (2000) 18(8) MedR, 360–364.
• Schroth Ulrich, ‘Anmerkung zu BGH, Urt. v. 6.7.2010 – 5 StR 386/09’ (2010) 63(36) NJW, 2676–2677.
• Schroth Ulrich, ‘Die gesetzliche Regelung der PID – De lege lata et de lege ferenda’ (2014) 125(3) ZStW, 627–646.
• Schuler-Harms Margarete, ‘Normgeprägte Grundrechte und Normkonkretisierungs¬kompetenz des Gesetzgebers - Folgerungen für das Grundrecht auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit’ in Rixen, Die Wiedergewinnung des Menschen als demokratisches Projekt: Neue Demokratietheorie als Bedingung demokratischer Grundrechtskonkretisierung in der Biopolitik (Mohr Siebeck 2015), 137-157.
• Schumann Eva, ‘Präimplantationsdiagnostik auf der Grundlage von Richterrecht?: Anmerkung zu BGH, Urt. v. 6. 7. 2010’ (2010) 28(12) MedR, 848–851.
• Scott Rosamund, ‘The Uncertain Scope of Reproductive Autonomy in Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Selective Abortion’ (2005) 13(3) Med Law Rev, 291–327.
• Scott Rosamund, Williams Claire Ehrich Kathryn and others, ‘The Appropriate Extent of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis: Health Professionals’ and Scientists’ Views on the Requirement for a ‘Significant Risk of a Serious Genetic Condition’’ (2007) 15(3) Med Law Rev, 320–356.
• Scott Rosamund, ‘Choosing Between Possible Lives: Legal and Ethical Issues in Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis’ (2006) 26(1) Oxf J Leg Stud, 153–178.
• Scott Rosamund, Choosing Between Possible Lives: Law and Ethics of Prenatal and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (Hart 2007).
• Serra Beatrice, ‘Religione e Sanità. Per una realizzazione laica del diritto alla salute’ (2017) 24(2) Diritto e Religioni, 483–502.
• Sharpe Abigail, Avery Peter and Choudhary Meenakshi, ‘Reproductive Outcome Following Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) in the UK’ (2018) 21(2) Human Fertility, 120–127.
• Sher George, Beyond Neutrality (Cambridge University Press 2009).
• Sicardi Stefano, ‘Il principio di laicità nella giurisprudenza della Corte Costituzionale (e rispetto alle posizioni dei giudici comuni)’ [2007](2) Dir pubbl, 501–570.
• Siciliano Francesco, ‘Sull’apporto delle dinamiche del diritto amministrativo alla tutela della decisione di avere figli con la tecnica della PMA eterologa: dalla “relativizzazione” del vuoto normativo all’orizzonte delle generazioni future’ [2020](2) BioLaw Journal – Rivista di BioDiritto, 209–235.
• Silvestri Gaetano, ‘Libertà di religione e Stato laico nella Costituzione italiana’ in Aqueci and Formigari, Laicità e diritti: Studi offerti a Demetrio Neri (Aracne editrice 2018), 27-42.
• Snelling Jeanne and Gavaghan Colin, ‘PGD Past and Present: Is the HFE Act 1990 Now 'Fit for Purpose'?’ in Horsey, Revisiting the Regulation of Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Routledge 2015), 125-148.
• Soper Christopher J. (ed), The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Six Democracies (3rd edn, Rowman & Littlefield 2017).
• Sorrenti Giusi, ‘Note minime sul rapporto tra ius, ethos e scientia’ [2017](2) Osservatorio Costituzionale, 1–15.
• Spagnolo Antonio G. ‘Personhood: Order and Border of Bioethics’ (2012) 10(3) J Med Pers, 99–102.
• Spickhoff Andreas, Medizinrecht (3rd edn. C.H. Beck 2018).
• Spranger Tade M. ‘Strafbarkeit der Präimplantationsdiagnostik: Anmerkung zu KG, Beschl. v. 9. 10. 2008’ (2010) 28(1) MedR, 36–41.
• Spranger Tade M. Recht und Bioethik: Verweisungszusammenhänge bei der Normierung der Lebenswissenschaften (Mohr Siebeck 2010).
• Stammati Sergio, ‘Riflessioni minime in tema di laicità (della comunità e dello stato).: Un colloquio con alcuni colleghi’ [2008](2) Dir pubbl, 341–406.
• Starck Christian, ‘Der verfassungsrechtliche Schutz des ungeborenen menschlichen Lebens. Zum zweiten Abtreibungsurteil des BVerfG’ (1993) 48(17) JZ, 816–822.
• Steele Jenny and Arvind T. T. ‘Introduction: Legislation and the Shape of Tort Law’ in Steele and Arvind, Tort Law and the Legislature: Common Law, Statute and the Dynamics of Legal Change (Hart 2013), 1-13.
• Steinbock Bonnie, ‘Mother–Fetus Conflict’ in Kuhse and Singer, A Companion to Bioethics (2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell 2009), 149-160.
• Strech Daniel, Hirschberg Irene and Marckmann Georg (eds), Ethics in Public Health and Health Policy: Concepts, Methods, Case Studies (Springer 2013).
• Striano Pasquale, Bifulco Francesca and Servillo Giuseppe, ‘The Saga of Eluana Englaro: Another Tragedy Feeding the Media’ (2009) 35(6) Intensive Care Med, 1129–1131.
• Ströttchen Jonathan, Verfassungsrechtliche Ansprüche auf konkrete medizinische Leistungen (Nomos 2019).
• Stürner Rolf, Der straffreie Schwangerschaftsabbruch in der Gesamtrechtsordnung: Rechtsgutachten für das Bundesverfassungsgericht mit seiner Vorgeschichte und einer Stellungnahme zur Entscheidung (Mohr 1994).
• Sutherland Qc Lauren, ‘The Right of Patients to Make Autonomous Choices: Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board: A Landmark Decision on Information Disclosure to Patients in the UK’ (2021) 32(7) Int Urogynecol J, 2005–2010.
• Sykora Peter and Caplan Arthur, ‘The Council of Europe Should not Reaffirm the Ban on Germline Genome Editing in Humans’ (2017) 18(11) EMBO reports, 1871–1872.
• Syrett Keith, ‘Deconstructing Deliberation in the Appraisal of Medical Technologies: NICEly Does it?’ (2006) 69(6) Mod Law Rev, 869–894.
• Syrett Keith, ‘Health Technology Appraisal and the Courts: Accountability for Reasonableness and the Judicial Model of Procedural Justice’ (2011) 6(4) Health Econ Policy Law, 469–488.
• Syrett Keith, ‘Impotence or Importance?: Judicial Review in an Era of Explicit NHS Rationing’ (2004) 67(2) Mod Law Rev, 289–304.
• Syrett Keith, ‘Nice Work?: Rationing, Review and the 'Legitimacy Problem' in the New NHS’ (2002) 10(1) Med Law Rev, 1–27.
• Syrett Keith, ‘The Organisation of Health Care’ in Laing and others, Principles of Medical Law (4th edn. Oxford University Press 2017).
• Syrett Keith, Law, Legitimacy and the Rationing of Healthcare (Cambridge University Press 2007).
• Tann Christiane von der, ‘Die künstliche Befruchtung in der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung’ (2015) 68(26) NJW, 1850–1854.
• Taupitz Jochen, ‘Recht und Ethik: Komplementär und dennoch defizitär?’ in Schliesky, Ernst and Schulz, Die Freiheit des Menschen in Kommune, Staat und Europa: Festschrift für Edzard Schmidt-Jortzig (Müller 2011), 825-839.
• Taupitz Jochen, ‘Zur Notwendigkeit eines Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetzes’ (2022) 50(1) Pro Familia Magazin Frankfurt, 6–9.
• Tega Diletta, ‘The Italian Constitutional Court in its Context: A Narrative’ (2021) 17(3) Eu Const Law Rev, 369–393.
• Tega Diletta, La corte nel contesto: Percorsi di ri-accentramento della giustizia costituzionale in Italia (BUP 2020).
• Teubner Gunther, Recht als autopoietisches System (Suhrkamp 1989).
• Thomas Robert, ‘Stag Hunting, Irrelevant Considerations and Judicial Review’ [1996](3) Web Journal of Current Legal Issues.
• Tolmein Oliver, ‘Präimplantationsdiagnose – neues Gesetz schafft Wertungswidersprüche’ [2011](5) GuP, 161–166.
• Tolmein Oliver, ‘Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Frau, Pränataldiagnostik und die UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention’ (2012) 45(4) KJ, 420–434.
• Tooley Michael, ‘Personhood’ in Kuhse and Singer, A Companion to Bioethics (2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell 2009), 129-139.
• Trimarchi Banfi Francesca, ‘Ragionevolezza e razionalità delle decisioni amministrative’ [2019](2) Diritto Processuale Amministrativo, 313–343.
• Tripodina Chiara, ‘Dio o Cesare? Chiesa cattolica e Stato laico di fronte alla questione bioetica’ [2007](1) Costituzionalismoit, 1–21.
• Tripodina Chiara, ‘Il “diritto” a procreare artificialmente in Italia: una storia emblematica, tra legislatore, giudici e Corti’ [2014](2) BioLaw Journal – Rivista di BioDiritto, 67–87.
• Tripodina Chiara, ‘Le parole non dette. In lode alla sentenza 96/2015 in materia di fecondazione assistita e diagnosi preimpianto per coppie fertili portatrici di malattia genetica’ [2015](2) wwwcostituzionalismoit.
• Turillazzi Emanuela and Fineschi Vittorio, ‘Spunti di riflessione medico-legale sulle norme "etiche" in tema di procreazione medicalmente assistita’ (2004) 26(1) Riv it med leg, 75–90.
• Turkmendag Ilke, ‘The Donor-conceived Child's 'Right to Personal Identity': The Public Debate on Donor Anonymity in the United Kingdom’ (2012) 39(1) J Law Soc, 58–75.
• UK Human Genetics Commission, ‘Making Babies: Reproductive Decisions and Genetic Technologies’ (2006) 11(1) Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik, 485–490.
• Valentini Valentina, ‘La laicità dello Stato e le nuove interrelazioni tra etica e diritto’ [2008](June) Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 1–41.
• Vallini Antonio, ‘Ancora sulla selezione preimpianto: incostituzionale la fattispecie di selezione embrionale per finalità eugenetiche, ma non quella di embrionicidio: Corte costituzionale, 21 ottobre 2015, n. 229’ [2015](Diritto Penale Contemporaneo).
• Vallini Antonio, ‘Il curioso (e doloroso) caso delle coppie fertili portatrici di malattie ereditarie, che potevano ricorrere all'aborto, ma non alla diagnosi e selezione preimpianto’ (2015) 58(3) Riv it dir proc pen, 1457–1485.
• Vallini Antonio, ‘La diagnosi preimpianto è un diritto: Commento a Tribunale di Cagliari, 9 novembre 2012’ [2013](4) Corriere del Merito, 431–436.
• Vallini Antonio, ‘Sistema e metodo di un biodiritto costituzionale: l’illegittimità del divieto di fecondazione “eterologa”’ [2014](7) Diritto Penale e Processo, 825–844.
• van der Burg Wibren, ‘Law and Bioethics’ in Kuhse and Singer, A Companion to Bioethics (2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell 2009), 56-64.
• van der Ven Katrin, Montag Markus and van der Ven Hans, ‘Polar Body Diagnosis – A Step in The Right Direction?’ (2008) 105(11) Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 190–196.
• van Hoof Wannes and Pennings Guido, ‘Extraterritorial Laws for Cross-border Reproductive Care: The Issue of Legal Diversity’ (2012) 19(2) Eur J Health Law, 187–200.
• Veitch Kenneth, The Jurisdiction of Medical Law (Routledge 2017).
• Veronesi Paolo, ‘La legge sulla procreazione assistita perde un altro "pilastro": illegittimo il divieto assoluto di fecondazione eterologa’ [2015](1) Istituzioni del federalismo, 5–33.
• Vettori Nicoletta, ‘Laicità e servizi pubblici. Il caso della sanità’ [2020](3) BioLaw Journal – Rivista di BioDiritto, 239–259.
• Vettori Nicoletta, Diritti della persona e amministrazione pubblica: La tutela della salute al tempo delle biotecnologie (Giuffrè 2017).
• Vicarelli Giovanna, ‘I nuovi LEA: Passaggio storico o illusione collettiva?’ [2017](3) Politiche Sociali, 517–522.
• Videtta Cristina, ‘I Comitati Etici nel sistema sanitario’ in Rodota, Zatti and Ferrara, Trattato di biodiritto: Salute e sanità (Giuffrè 2011), 549-577.
• Vinante Valentina, Keller Bettina, Huhn Evelyn A. and others, ‘Impact of Nationwide Health Insurance Coverage for Non-invasive Prenatal Testing’ (2018) 141(2) Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 189–193.
• Vöneky Silja, ‘Ethische Experten und moralischer Autoritarismus’ in Vöneky and others, Legitimation ethischer Entscheidungen im Recht: Interdisziplinäre Untersuchungen (Springer 2009).
• Vöneky Silja, Beylage-Haarmann Britta and Höfelmeier Anja and others (eds), Ethik und Recht - Die Ethisierung des Rechts/Ethics and Law - The Ethicalization of Law (Springer 2013).
• Vöneky Silja, Hagedorn Cornelia and Clados Miriam and others (eds), Legitimation ethischer Entscheidungen im Recht: Interdisziplinäre Untersuchungen (Springer 2009).
• Vöneky Silja, Recht, Moral und Ethik: Grundlagen und Grenzen demokratischer Legitimation für Ethikgremien (Mohr Siebeck 2010).
• Wachter Maurice A. M. de, ‘The European Convention on Bioethics’ (1997) 27(1) Hastings Cent Rep, 13–23.
• Wald Nicholas J. ‘Are Screening Practice Ethics Committees Needed?’ (2021) 28(4) J Med Screen, 377–378.
• Wald Nicholas J. and Bower C. ‘Folic Acid and the Prevention of Neural Tube Defects’ (1995) 310(6986) BMJ, 1019–1020.
• Wald Nicholas J. Cuckle H. S. Densem J. W. and others, ‘Maternal Serum Screening for Down's Syndrome in Early Pregnancy’ (1988) 297(6653) BMJ, 883–887.
• Wald Nicholas J. Cuckle Howard and Royston Patrick, ‘Antenatal Screening For Down Syndrome’ (1988) 332(8624) Lancet, 1362.
• Wald Nicholas J. Gilbertson Moyna P. and Doyle Wendy, ‘Folic Acid in Prevention of Neural Tube Defects’ (1995) 345(8946) Lancet, 389–390.
• Waldron Jeremy, ‘The Irrelevance of Moral Objectivity’ in Waldron, Law and Disagreement (Oxford University Press 1999), 164-187.
• Wale Jeff. ‘Regulating Disruptive Technology and Informational Interests in the Arena of Reproductive Tests’ (2019) 3(1) Journal of Information Rights, Policy and Practice, 1–15.
• Wale Jeff. ‘Don’t Forget the Legal Framework: The Public Provision of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing in England and Wales’ (2016) 15(4) Med Law Int, 203–215.
• Walters Mark D. (ed), A.V. Dicey and the Common Law Constitutional Tradition (Cambridge University Press 2021).
• Wang Daniel and Rumbold Benedict, ‘Priority Setting, Judicial Review, and Procedural Justice’ in Phillips, Campos and Herring, Philosophical Foundations of Medical Law (Oxford University Press 2019), 185-196.
• Wang Daniel, ‘From Wednesbury Unreasonableness to Accountability for Reasonableness’ (2017) 76(3) Camb Law J, 642–670.
• Wang Daniel, Can Litigation Promote Fairness in Healthcare?: The Judicial Review of Rationing Decisions in Brazil and England (2013).
• Warnock Mary, ‘Haben menschliche Zellen Rechte?’ in Leist, Um Leben und Tod: Moralische Probleme bei Abtreibung, Künstlicher Befruchtung, Euthanasie und Selbstmord (2nd edn. Suhrkamp 1990), 215-234.
• Warnock Mary, ‘Moral Thinking and Government Policy: The Warnock Committee on Human Embryology’ (1985) 63(3) The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly Health and Society, 504.
• Warnock Mary, Dishonest to God (Continuum 2010).
• Warren Mary A. ‘Abortion’ in Kuhse and Singer, A Companion to Bioethics (2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell 2009), 140-148.
• Warren Mary A. Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things (Oxford University Press 2000).
• Weinrib Ernest J. ‘Law as a Kantian Idea of Reason’ (1987) 87(3) Colum L Rev, 472–508.
• Weinstock Daniel M. ‘Natural Law and Public Reason in Kant's Political Philosophy’ (1996) 26(3) Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 389–411.
• Werner Micha H. ‘Krankheitsbegriff und Verteilungsgerechtigkeit im Gesundheitswesen’ in Rothhaar and Frewer, Das Gesunde, das Kranke und die Medizinethik: Moralische Implikationen des Krankheitsbegriffs (Franz Steiner Verlag 2012), 209-225.
• Westermann Stefanie, Steinicke Henning, Mengel Johannes and others (eds), Fortpflanzungsmedizin in Deutschland - für eine zeitgemäße Gesetzgebung (Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina e.V. - Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften; Union der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften e.V 2019).
• Wicks Elizabeth. ‘Religion, Law and Medicine: Legislating on birth and death in a Christian state’ (2009) 17(3) Med Law Rev, 410–437.
• Widrig Daniel, Health Technology Assessment (Springer 2015).
• Wilson Duncan, ‘Creating the ‘ethics industry’: Mary Warnock, in vitro fertilization and the history of bioethics in Britain’ (2011) 6(2) BioSocieties, 121–141.
• Wise Jacqui, ‘The End of Down's Syndrome?’ (2016) 355(i5344) BMJ, 1–2.
• Wostry Thomas, ‘Fünf Jahre PID-Gesetz’ (2016) 28(3) Medizinische Genetik, 299–303.
• Wright Tony, ‘The politics of accountability’ in Elliott and Feldman, The Cambridge Companion to Public Law (Cambridge University Press 2015), 96-115.
• Wu Pensée, Whiteford Margo L. and Cameron Alan D. ‘Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis’ (2014) 24(3) Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Reproductive Medicine, 67–73.
• Young Alison, Democratic Dialogue and the Constitution (Oxford University Press 2017).
• Young Alison, ‘Fundamental Common Law Rights and Legislation’ in Elliott and Hughes, Common Law Constitutional Rights (Hart Publishing 2020), 223-251.
• Zacher Hans F. ‘Vorfragen zu den Methoden des Sozialrechtsvergleichs’ in Zacher and Schulte, Methodische Probleme des Sozialrechtsvergleichs: Colloquium der Projektgruppe für internationales und vergleichendes Sozialrecht der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Duncker & Humblot 1977), 22-74.
• Zagrebelsky Vladimiro, ‘Un'introduzione al diritto fondamentale alla salute’ in Rossi and Bottari, Sanità e diritti fondamentali in ambito europeo e italiano (Maggioli 2013), 1-14.
• Zanetti Véronique, Spielarten des Kompromisses (Suhrkamp 2022).
• Zicchittu Paolo, ‘Inerzia del legislatore e dialettica istituzionale nell’ordinanza della Corte costituzionale in tema di aiuto al suicidio’ [2019](1) Dirittifondamentaliit, 1–44.
• Zotti Stefan, ‘Ethische Politikberatung: Anmerkungen zur Frage der Legitimation von Expertenkommissionen im bioethischen Diskurs’ in Vöneky and others, Legitimation ethischer Entscheidungen im Recht: Interdisziplinäre Untersuchungen (Springer 2009), 99-114.
• Zühlke Christine, Hellenbroich Yorck, Fondel Sabine and others, ‘Präimplantationsdiagnostik’ (2016) 28(3) Medizinische Genetik, 304–309.
• Zweigert Konrad and Kötz Hein, Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung auf dem Gebiete des Privatrechts (3rd edn, Mohr 1996).
• Zwermann-Milstein Nina T. Grund und Grenzen einer verfassungsrechtlich gebotenen gesundheitlichen Mindestversorgung (Nomos 2015).
• Materials
• ‘8. Mitteilung der GEKO zur Einordnung der nicht-invasiven Pränataldiagnostik (NIPD) und der diesbezüglichen Beratungsqualifikation’ (12.3.2014) <https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Kommissionen/GendiagnostikKommission/Mitteilungen/GEKO_Mitteilungen_08.html> accessed 13.4.2022.
• ‘CDU stoppt Spahns Pläne für kostenlose Gentests’ (29.1.2019) <https://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/diagnose/jens-spahn-cdu-will-keine-kostenlosen-gentests-fuer-embryonen-a-1250600.html> accessed 8.9.2021.
• ‘Krankenkassen sollen Präimplantations­diagnostik bezahlen’ (15.01.19) <https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/100349/Krankenkassen-sollen-Praeimplantationsdiagnostik-bezahlen> accessed 8.9.2021.
• ‘Lombardia. Approvati nuovi test fetali non invasivi per le donne in gravidanza’ Quotidiano Sanità (16.11.2021) <http://www.quotidianosanita.it/regioni-e-asl/articolo.php?articolo_id=100054> accessed 6.4.2022.
• ‘Nipt test. Regione valuta utilizzo gratuito dopo Odg approvato all’unanimità in Consiglio’ Quotidiano Sanità (7.4.2021) <https://www.quotidianosanita.it/liguria/articolo.php?articolo_id=94373> accessed 6.4.2022.
• ‘Percorso nascita. In Toscana test combinato gratuito a tutte le gestanti e test Nipt a tariffa ridotta. Saccardi: “Facciamo da apripista a livello nazionale”’ Quotidiano Sanità (5.3.2019) <https://www.quotidianosanita.it/regioni-e-asl/articolo.php?articolo_id=71605> accessed 6.4.2022.
• ‘Pma. Luca Coscioni: “Inserire tra le tecniche di procreazione le indagini genetiche preimpianto”’ (22.1.2018) <https://www.quotidianosanita.it/governo-e-parlamento/articolo.php?articolo_id=58200> accessed 14.7.2021.
• ‘Pränatale Diagnostik:"Wir stehen erst am Beginn einer besorgniserregenden Entwicklung"’ Süddeutsche Zeitung (28.7.2022) <https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/praenatale-diagnostik-bundestag-trisomie-1.5629581> accessed 3.8.2022.
• ‘Test prenatali. Sileri: “All’esame della Commissione Lea inserimento dei test non invasivi”’ Quotidiano Sanità (9.1.2020).
• ‘Union stoppt Spahns Vorstoß zu Präimplantations­diagnostik als Kassenleistung’ (29.1.2019) <https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/100748> accessed 8.9.2021.
• ‘Widerstand der Kirchen gegen Spahn-Pläne zur Präimplantations­­diagnostik’ (24.1.2019) <https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/100628/Widerstand-der-Kirchen-gegen-Spahn-Plaene-zur-Praeimplantationsdiagnostik> accessed 8.9.2021.
• Aceti Tonino, ‘Nuovi Lea. Che fine ha fatto il “Decreto Tariffe”? Approvarlo subito per rendere esigibili i nuovi diritti dei pazienti e ridurre le disuguaglianze’ (29.9.2020) <https://www.quotidianosanita.it/lavoro-e-professioni/articolo.php?articolo_id=88333> accessed 14.7.2021.
• ASA, ‘Ruling on My Baby Enterprises Ltd: Complaint Ref: A19-564685’ (20.11.2019) <https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/my-baby-enterprises-ltd-A19-564685.html> accessed 23.3.2022.
• ASA, ‘Ruling on The Birth Company: Complaint Ref: A19-564688’ (20.11.2019) <https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/the-birth-company-A19-564688.html> accessed 23.3.2022.
• ASA, ‘Ruling on Ultrasound Direct Ltd: Complaint Ref: A19-564681’ (20.11.2019) <https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/ultrasound-direct-ltd-A19-564681.html> accessed 23.3.2023.
• Bahnsen Ulrich, ‘Pränataldiagnostik: Der Test’ Die Zeit (22.1.2015) <https://www.zeit.de/2015/04/praenataldiagnostik-down-syndrom-krankenkasse> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Becker Kim B. Grunert Marlene and Müller Reinhard, ‘"Wir bauen Druck auf, aber wir sind es den Patienten schuldig": Jens Spahn im Gespräch’ Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung (25.2.2019) accessed 8.9.2021.
• BioSkop, GeN and Netzwerk gegen Selektion durch Pränataldiagnostik, ‘Gemeinsame Stellungnahme zum Bericht der IQWiG: "Nicht invasive Pränataldiagnostik zur Bestimmung des Risikos autosomaler Trisomien 13, 18 und 21 bei Risikoschwangerschaften": Moratorium für den Bluttest!’ (4.7.2018) <https://gen-ethisches-netzwerk.de/sites/default/files/dokumente/2018-07/2018_07_04-stellungnahme-gen_iqwig.pdf> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Bundesärztekammer, ‘Diskussionsentwurf zu einer Richtlinie zur Präimplantationsdiagnostik’ (2000) 97(9) Deutsches Ärzteblatt, A525-A528.
• Bundesärztekammer, ‘Memorandum zur Präimplantationsdiagnostik (PID)’ (2011) 108(31) Deutsches Ärzteblatt, A1701-A1708.
• Bundesärztekammer, ‘Richtlinien zur Durchführung von In-vitro-Fertilisation (IVF) und Embryotransfer (ET) als Behandlungsmethode der menschlichen Sterilität’ (1985) 82(22) Deutsches Ärzteblatt, 1691–1698.
• Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, ‘Daten des Gesundheitswesens 2021’ <https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/5_Publikationen/Gesundheit/Broschueren/220125_BMG_DdGW_2021_bf.pdf> accessed 25.4.2022.
• Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, ‘Zweiter Bericht über die Erfahrungen mit der Präimplantationsdiagnostik’ (2020).
• Bundesrat, ‘BR-Drucks. 504/18. Stellungnahme des Bundesrates: Entwurf eines Gesetzes für schnellere Termine und bessere Versorgung (Terminservice- und Versorgungsgesetz - TSVG’ (23.11.2018).
• Bundesrat, ‘BR-Drucks. 717/12: Beschluss des Bundesrates. Verordnung zur Regelung der Präimplantationsdiagnostik (Präimplantationsdiagnostikverordnung - PIDV)’ (1.2.13).
• Comitato Nazionale per la Bioetica, ‘Diagnosi prenatali’ (18.7.1992) <https://bioetica.governo.it/media/1920/p9_1992_diagnosi-prenatali_it.pdf> accessed 6.4.2022.
• Conference Prenatal Testing, Disability, and the Ethical Society, ‘Reflections Following Crowter’ (4.3.2022) <https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/events/prenatal-testing-disability-and-ethical-society-reflections-following-crowter> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Conferenza Stato-Regioni, ‘Intesa, ai sensi dell’articolo 8, comma 6, della legge 5 giugno 2003, n. 131, tra il Governo, le Regioni e le Province autonome di Trento e Bolzano sul documento recante “Piano per l’innovazione del sistema sanitario basata sulle scienze omiche”’ (26.10.2017).
• Conferenza Stato-Regioni, ‘Intesa, ai sensi dell'articolo 8, comma 6, della legge 5 giugno 2003, n. 131 , tra il Governo, le Regioni e le Province autonome di Trento e di Bolzano concernente il Patto per la salute per gli anni 2019-2021’ (18.12.2019).
• Consiglio Superiore di Sanità, Sez. I, ‘Gruppo di Lavoro “NIPT 2”. Impatto socio-economico del test del cfDNA/NIPT in Sanità pubblica’ (07.2016) <http://www.plurigentest.it/NIPT2%20%20doc%20%20finale%2012%20LUGLIO%202016.pdf> accessed 6.4.2022.
• Consiglio Superiore di Sanità, Sez. I, ‘Linee-Guida. Screening prenatale non invasivo basato sul DNA (Non Invasive Prenatal Testing – NIPT)’ (05.2015) <https://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pubblicazioni_2381_allegato.pdf> accessed 6.4.2022.
• Consiglio Superiore di Sanità, Sez. I, ‘Screening del DNA fetale non invasivo (NIPT) in sanità pubblica’ (9.3.2021) <https://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pubblicazioni_3097_allegato.pdf> accessed 6.4.2022.
• Council of Europe, Steering Committee on Bioethics, ‘Preparatory Work on the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine’ (Strasbourg 28.6.2000) CDBI/INF (2000) 1 <https://www.coe.int/t/dg3/healthbioethic/texts_and_documents/CDBI-INF%282000%291PrepConv.pdf> accessed 25.4.2022.
• Deckers Daniel and Mihm Andreas, ‘"Das wäre Zwei-Klassen-Medizin" Im Gespräch: Josef Hecken, Vorsitzender des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses’ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (14.12.2016).
• Department of Health and Social Care, ‘Annex: public health functions (section 7A) agreement 2020 to 2021 – services to be provided’ (26.10.2020) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-health-commissioning-in-the-nhs-2020-to-2021/annex-public-health-functions-section-7a-agreement-2020-to-2021-services-to-be-provided> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Department of Health and Social Care, ‘News story. Safer screening test for pregnant women: New non-invasive prenatal test for Down’s, Edwards’ and Patau’s syndromes, which is safer for women and their babies.’ (02.11.2016) <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/safer-screening-test-for-pregnant-women> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Department of Health and Social Care, ‘NHS public health functions (section 7A) agreement 2021 to 2022: letter from DHSC to NHSE’ (18.11.2021) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-health-commissioning-in-the-nhs-2021-to-2022/nhs-public-health-functions-section-7a-agreement-2021-to-2022-letter-from-dhsc-to-nhse> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Department of Health and Social Care, ‘The NHS Constitution for England’ (1.1.2021) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nhs-constitution-for-england/the-nhs-constitution-for-england> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Department of Health and Social Security, ‘Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation’ (1987) Cm 259.
• Department of Health and Social Security, ‘Legislation on human infertility services and embryo research: a consultation paper’ (London 1986) Cm 46 <https://wellcomecollection.org/works/jvn4ek6a> accessed 18.2.2022.
• Department of Health, ‘Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Proposals for revised legislation (including establishment of the Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryos)’ (London 2006) Cm 6989 <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272391/6989.pdf> accessed 18.2.2022.
• Deutscher Bundestag, ‘Ausschuss für Gesundheit, Protokoll Nr. 17/42: Wortprotokoll 42. Sitzung’ (Berlin 25.5.2011).
• Deutscher Bundestag, ‘Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Ausschusses für Gesundheit (14. Ausschuss)’ (13.3.2019).
• Deutscher Bundestag, ‘BT-Drucks. 11/5460. Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zum Schutz von Embryonen (Embryonenschutzgesetz - ESchG)’ (25.10.1989) <https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/11/054/1105460.pdf> accessed 8.3.2022.
• Deutscher Bundestag, ‘BT-Drucks. 14/7415. Parr, Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, Schmidt-Jortzig et al.: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Regelung der Präimplantationsdiagnostik (Präimplantationsdiagnostikgesetz - PräimpG)’ (9.11.2001) <https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/14/074/1407415.pdf> accessed 15.8.2022.
• Deutscher Bundestag, ‘BT-Drucks. 14/9020: Schlussbericht der Enquete-Kommission „Recht und Ethik der modernen Medizin“’ (14.5.2002).
• Deutscher Bundestag, ‘BT-Drucks. 15/1234. Parr, Flach, Funke et al.: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Regelung der Präimplantationsdiagnostik (Präimplantationsdiagnostikgesetz – PräimpG)’ (25.6.2003) <https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/15/012/1501234.pdf> accessed 15.8.2022.
• Deutscher Bundestag, ‘BT-Drucks. 17/5450. Göring-Eckardt, Kauder and others: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zum Verbot der Präimplantationsdiagnostik’ (11.4.2011) <https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/17/054/1705450.pdf> accessed 15.8.2022.
• Deutscher Bundestag, ‘BT-Drucks. 17/5451. Flach, Hintze and others: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Regelung der Präimplantationsdiagnostik’ (12.4.2011) <https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/17/054/1705451.pdf> accessed 15.8.2022.
• Deutscher Bundestag, ‘BT-Drucks. 17/5452. Röspel, Hinz and others: Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur begrenzten Zulassung der Präimplantationsdiagnostik’ (12.4.2011) <https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/17/054/1705452.pdf> accessed 15.8.2022.
• Deutscher Bundestag, ‘BT-Drucks. 17/6400: Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Ausschusses für Gesundheit (14. Ausschuss)’ (Berlin 30.6.2011).
• Deutscher Bundestag, ‘BT-Drucks. 19/8351: Bericht des Ausschusses für Bildung, Forschung und Technikfolgenabschätzung (18. Ausschuss) gemäß § 56a der Geschäftsordnung’ (4.11.2019).
• Deutscher Bundestag, ‘BT-Drucks. 19/9059: Bericht des Ausschusses für Bildung, Forschung und Technikfolgenabschätzung (18. Ausschuss) gemäß § 56a der Geschäftsordnung’ (4.4.2019) <https://dserver.bundestag.de/btd/19/090/1909059.pdf> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Deutscher Bundestag, ‘Plenarprotokoll 14/209: 209. Sitzung’ (Berlin 14.12.2001).
• Deutscher Bundestag, ‘Plenarprotokoll 17/105: 105. Sitzung’ (Berlin 14.4.2011).
• Deutscher Bundestag, ‘Plenarprotokoll 17/120: 120. Sitzung’ (Berlin 7.7.2011).
• Deutscher Bundestag, ‘Plenarprotokoll 19/95: 95. Sitzung’ (Berlin 11.4.2019).
• Deutscher Ethikrat, ‘Intersexuality: Opinion’ (2012) <https://www.ethikrat.org/fileadmin/Publikationen/Stellungnahmen/englisch/opinion-intersexuality.pdf> accessed 2.2.2021.
• Deutscher Ethikrat, ‘Intervening in the Human Germline: Opinion: Executive Summary and Recommendations’ (2019) <https://www.ethikrat.org/fileadmin/Publikationen/Stellungnahmen/englisch/opinion-intervening-in-the-human-germline-summary.pdf> accessed 2.2.2021.
• Deutscher Ethikrat, ‘Präimplantationsdiagnostik: Stellungnahme’ (2011) <https://www.ethikrat.org/fileadmin/Publikationen/Stellungnahmen/deutsch/stellungnahme-praeimplantationsdiagnostik.pdf> accessed 6.9.2021.
• Deutscher Ethikrat, ‘Pressemitteilung 01/2022: Ethikrat lädt ein zum Thema ‚‚Wissens-Wert? Zum verantwortlichen Umgang mit nichtinvasiven Pränataltests (NIPT)“’ <https://www.ethikrat.org/mitteilungen/mitteilungen/2022/ethikrat-laedt-ein-zum-thema-wissens-wert-zum-verantwortlichen-umgang-mit-nichtinvasiven-praenataltests-nipt/?cookieLevel=not-set> accessed 6.4.2022.
• Deutscher Ethikrat, ‘The Future of Genetic Diagnosis: From Research to Clinical Practice’ (2013) <https://www.ethikrat.org/fileadmin/Publikationen/Stellungnahmen/englisch/opinion-the-future-of-genetic-diagnosis.pdf> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Deutscher Ethikrat, ‘The regulation of assisted suicide in an open society: German Ethics Council recommends the statutory reinforcement of suicide prevention: Ad Hoc Recommendation’ (2014) <https://www.ethikrat.org/fileadmin/Publikationen/Ad-hoc-Empfehlungen/englisch/recommendation-assisted-suicide.pdf> accessed 2.2.2021.
• Dovico Ermes, ‘Il Piemonte, il Nipt e la china scivolosa sui bimbi Down’ La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana <https://lanuovabq.it/it/il-piemonte-il-nipt-e-la-china-scivolosa-sui-bimbi-down> accessed 6.4.2022.
• Elliott Mark, ‘1000 words/Parliamentary sovereignty’ (2014) <https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2014/10/15/1000-words-parliamentary-sovereignty/> accessed 17.1.2022.
• Fondazione ONDA, ‘Atti tavolo tecnico interregionale Test Prenatali Non Invasivi (NIPT)’ (Milano 13.12.2019) <https://ondaosservatorio.it/ondauploads/2020/10/NIPT-ONDA_atti-tavolo-tecnico_DEF.pdf> accessed 6.4.2022.
• Gärditz Klaus F. ‘Gutachtliche Stellungnahme zur Zulässigkeit des Diagnostikprodukts "PraenaTest"’ (2012) <https://cdl-online.net/uploads/pdf/praenatest.pdf> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), ‘Antrag auf Bewertung der Methode der nicht-invasiven Pränataldiagnostik (NIPD) zur Bestimmung des Risikos autosomaler Trisomien 13, 18 und 21 mittels eines molekular-genetischen Tests für die Anwendung bei Risikoschwangerschaften im Rahmen der Mutterschafts-Richtlinien nach § 135 Absatz 1 SGB V’ (4.7.2016) <https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/40-268-3933/2016-08-18_Einleitung-Beratungsverf_nicht-invasive-Praenataldiagnostik_Antrag.pdf> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), ‘Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Einleitung des Stellungnahmeverfahrens gemäß § 91 Absatz 5, § 91 Absatz 5a sowie § 92 Absatz 1b und § 92 Absatz 7d des Fünften Buches Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB V) vor einer abschließenden Entscheidung über eine Änderung der Mutterschafts-Richtlinien: Nicht-invasive Pränataldiagnostik (NIPD) autosomaler Trisomien 13, 18 und 21 mittels eines molekulargenetischen Tests (NIPT) für die Anwendung bei Risikoschwangerschaften im Rahmen der Mutterschafts-Richtlinien (Mu-RL)’ (22.3.2019).
• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), ‘Beschluss über eine Änderung der Mutterschafts-Richtlinien (Mu-RL): Nicht-invasive Pränataldiagnostik zur Bestimmung des Risikos autosomaler Trisomien 13, 18 und 21 mittels eines molekulargenetischen Tests (NIPT) für die Anwendung bei Schwangerschaften mit besonderen Risiken’ (19.9.2019) BAnz AT 20.12.2019 B6 <https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/39-261-3955/2019-09-19_Mu-RL_NIPT_BAnz_WZ.pdf> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), ‘Beschluss über eine Änderung der Mutterschafts-Richtlinien (Mu-RL): Aufnahme einer Versicherteninformation zur Durchführung der Nicht-invasiven Pränataldiagnostik zur Bestimmung des Risikos autosomaler Trisomien 13, 18 und 21 mittels eines molekulargenetischen Tests (NIPT-Trisomie 13,18,21) für die Anwendung bei Schwangerschaften mit besonderen Risiken’ (19.8.2021) <https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/39-261-4987/2021-08-19_Mu-RL_NIPT_Versicherteninformation.pdf> accessed 29.9.2021.
• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), ‘Beschluss über eine Beauftragung des Instituts für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen: Erstellung einer Versicherteninformation über die bestehenden Möglichkeiten der Pränataldiagnostik gemäß Mutterschafts-Richtlinien (Mu-RL) sowie der Einbindung von Eckpunkten, die sich gegebenenfalls aus einer zukünftigen Änderung der Mu-RL ergeben’ (16.2.2017) <https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/39-261-2857/2017-02-16_Mu-RL_IQWiG-Beauftragung-Versicherteninformation-PD-NIPD.pdf> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), ‘Beschluss zur Einleitung des Stellungnahmeverfahrens gemäß § 91 Absatz 5, § 92 Absatz 1b und § 92 Absatz 7d des Fünften Buches Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB V) sowie gemäß 1. Kapitel § 8 Absatz 2 Satz 1 lit. a) VerfO vor einer abschließenden Entscheidung über eine Änderung der Mutterschafts-Richtlinien: Aufnahme einer Versicherteninformation zur Nicht-invasiven Pränataldiagnostik zur Bestimmung des Risikos autosomaler Trisomien 13, 18 und 21 mittels eines molekular-genetischen Tests (NIPT-Trisomie 13,18,21) für die Anwendung bei Schwangerschaften mit besonderen Risiken’ (22.4.2021) <https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/39-261-4803/2021-04-22_Mu-RL_Einleitung-SN-Versicherteninfo-NIPT.pdf> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), ‘Konkretisierung des Auftrags des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses an das Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen: Evidenzbewertung der nicht-invasiven Pränataldiagnostik (NIPD) zur Bestimmung des Risikos autosomaler Trisomien 13, 18 und 21 mittels eines molekulargenetischen Tests für die Anwendung bei Risikoschwangerschaften im Rahmen der Mutterschafts-Richtlinien (Mu-RL)’ (26.1.2017) <https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/40-268-4204/2017-01-26_Mu-RL_Auftragskonkretisierung_Evidenzbewertung.pdf> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), ‘Nicht-invasive Tests bei Risikoschwangerschaften: G-BA fordert zur Stellungnahme auf’ (22.3.2019) <https://www.g-ba.de/presse/pressemitteilungen-meldungen/789/> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), ‘Pressemitteilung Nr. 02/2015: Methodenbewertung: Klarstellung des Sachstandes zu Pränatests für Schwangere’ (22.1.2015) <https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/34-215-566/02-2015-01-22_Erprobung.pdf> accessed 10.8.2022.
• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), ‘Pressemitteilung Nr. 20/2014: Methodenbewertung: Erprobung von neuen Untersuchungs- und Behandlungsmethoden: Weiterer Meilenstein erreicht’ (8.5.2014) <https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/34-215-534/20-2014-05-08_Erprobungsrichtlinien.pdf> accessed 15.12.2019.
• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), ‘Pressemitteilung Nr. 26/2019: Nicht-invasiver Test zum Vorliegen von Trisomien als mögliche Alternative zu invasivem Eingriff’ (19.9.2019) <https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/34-215-810/26_2019-09-19_Mu-RL_NIPT.pdf> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), ‘Pressemitteilung Nr. 28/2021: Versicherteninformation zum vorgeburtlichen Bluttest auf Trisomien liegt nun vor’ (19.8.2021) <https://www.g-ba.de/presse/pressemitteilungen-meldungen/974/> accessed 29.8.2021.
• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), ‘Pressemitteilung Nr. 32/ 2016: Methodenbewertung: Nicht-invasive Pränataldiagnostik bei Risiko-schwangerschaften - G-BA beginnt Verfahren zur Methodenbewertung - Beratungen zur Erprobung ruhend gestellt’ (18.8.2016) <https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/34-215-635/32_2016-08-18_Methodenbewertung%20NIPD.pdf> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), ‘Schreiben von Prof. Josef Hecken, unparteiischer Vorsitzender des G-BA, an Mitglieder des Deutschen Bundestages zur Nichtvertagung der Beschlussfassung zu NIPT’ (19.9.2019) <https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/17-98-4847/2019-09-19-PA-JHecken_an-BT-Abgesordnete_NIPT.pdf> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), ‘Tragende Gründe zum Beschlussentwurf über eine Änderung der Mutterschafts-Richtlinien (Mu-RL): Nicht-invasive Pränataldiagnostik zur Bestimmung des Risikos autosomaler Trisomien 13, 18 und 21 mittels eines molekulargenetischen Tests (NIPT) für die Anwendung bei Risikoschwangerschaften’ (22.3.2019) <https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/40-268-5640/2019-03-22_Einleitung-SN_NiPT_Beschlussentwurf_TrG_WZ.pdf> accessed 29.9.2021.
• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA), ‘Tragende Gründe zum Beschluss über eine Änderung der Mutterschafts-Richtlinien (Mu-RL): Nicht-invasive Pränataldiagnostik zur Bestimmung des Risikos autosomaler Trisomien 13, 18 und 21 mittels eines molekulargenetischen Tests (NIPT) für die Anwendung bei Schwangerschaften mit besonderen Risiken’ (19.9.2019) <https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/40-268-6007/2019-09-19_Mu-RL_NIPT_TrG.pdf> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Giacosa Mariachiara, ‘Sinistra e Lega, la "strana coppia" che in Piemonte ha ottenuto il test del dna per le donne incinte’ La Repubblica (4.2.2021) <https://torino.repubblica.it/cronaca/2021/02/04/news/strana_coppia_sinistra_lega_test_dna_gravidanza_gratuito-285999290/> accessed 6.4.2022.
• Gruppo di Lavoro Regionale Test Prenatali Non Invasivi (NIPT), ‘Resoconto delle attività: marzo - giugno 2015’ (28.12.2015) <https://assr.regione.emilia-romagna.it/pubblicazioni/rapporti-documenti/test-prenatali-2015/@@download/publicationFile/Gruppo%20RER%20NIPT.pdf> accessed 6.4.2022.
• Guazzarotti Andrea, ‘Laicità e Giurisprudenza’ (2012) <http://www.europeanrights.eu/public/commenti/Commento_Guazzarotti.pdf> accessed 26.5.2021.
• House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, ‘Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law: Fifth Report of Session 2004–05’ (Volume I, London 14.3.2005) <https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/7/7i.pdf> accessed 17.1.2022.
• Hufen Friedhelm, ‘Zur verfassungsrechtlichen Beurteilung frühzeitiger pränataler Diagnostik: Dargestellt am Beispiel des Diagnoseprodukts PraenaTest®’ (4.1.2013) <https://lifecodexx.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Jan-2013_PraenaTest_Zur_verfassungsrechtlichen_Beurteilung_fruehzeitiger_praenataler_Diagnostik_Friedhelm_Hufen.pdf> accessed 21.9.2021.
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ‘Code of Practice: 5th Edition’ (London 2001) <https://portal.hfea.gov.uk/media/1582/hfea-code-of-practice-5th-edition.pdf> accessed 18.2.2022.
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ‘Code of Practice: 6th Edition’ (London 2003) <https://portal.hfea.gov.uk/media/1583/hfea-code-of-practice-6th-edition.pdf> accessed 18.2.2022.
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ‘Code of Practice: 8th Edition’ (London 2009) <https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2062/2017-10-02-code-of-practice-8th-edition-full-version-11th-revision-final-clean.pdf> accessed 18.2.2022.
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ‘Code of Practice: 9th Edition’ (London 2018) <https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2565/hfea-draft-code-of-practice-9th-edition-consultation-version.pdf> accessed 18.2.2022.
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ‘Commissioning guidance for fertility treatment’ (London 2019) <https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2920/commissioning-guidance-may-2019-final-version.pdf> accessed 13.4.2022.
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ‘Fertility treatment 2017: trends and figures’ (2018) <https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2894/fertility-treatment-2017-trends-and-figures-may-2019.pdf> accessed 18.2.2022.
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, ‘Sex Selection: Public Consultation Document. London’ (London January 1993).
• Human Genetics Commission, ‘Choosing the Future: Genetics and Reproductive Decision-Making — Analysis of Responses to the Consultation’ (2005).
• Human Genetics Commission, Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority, ‘Outcome of the public consultation on preimplantation genetic diagnosis’ (London November 2001).
• Hüppe Hubert, Rüffer Corinna and Schmidt Dagmar and others, ‘TOP 8.2.1 der 91. Öffentlichen G-BA Sitzung am 18. August 2016’ (17.8.2016) <https://www.netzwerk-praenataldiagnostik.de/data/praenatal-diagnostik/pdf/Brief_MdBs_zur_91_G-BA-Sitzung.pdf> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, ‘Nicht invasive Pränataldiagnostik (NIPD) zur Bestimmung des Risikos autosomaler Trisomien 13, 18 und 21 bei Risikoschwangerschaften (Vorbericht)’ (11.12.2017) <https://www.iqwig.de/download/s16-06_nicht-invasive-praenataldiagnostik-nipd_vorbericht_v1-0.pdf?rev=187029> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, ‘IQWiG-Berichte - Nr. 623: Nicht invasive Pränataldiagnostik (NIPD) zur Bestimmung des Risikos autosomaler Trisomien 13, 18 und 21 bei Risikoschwangerschaften (Abschlussbericht)’ (30.4.2018) <https://www.iqwig.de/download/s16-06_nicht-invasive-praenataldiagnostik-nipd_abschlussbericht_v1-0.pdf> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, ‘Nicht invasive Pränataldiagnostik kann Trisomie 21 zuverlässig bestimmen’ (27.6.2018) <https://www.iqwig.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/pressemitteilungen-detailseite_10172.html> accessed 28.9.2021.
• Joynson Catherine, ‘Embedding ethics at the UK National Screening Committee’ (23.3.2021) <https://phescreening.blog.gov.uk/2021/03/23/embedding-ethics-at-the-uk-national-screening-committee/> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Joynson Catherine, ‘Our concerns about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the private healthcare sector’ (8.2.2019) <https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/blog/nipt-private> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung, ‘Beschluss des Bewertungsausschusses nach § 87 Abs. 1 Satz 1 SGB V in seiner 594. Sitzung am 18. Mai 2022 zur Änderung des Einheitlichen Bewertungsmaßstabes (EBM)’ (2022) 119(24) Deutsches Ärzteblatt, A1108-A1111.
• Lavery Ian, ‘Pregnancy: Screening. Question for Department of Health and Social Care: UIN 285277 (Answer: Caroline Dinenage)’ (2.9.2019) <https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2019-09-02/285277#> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Mackie Anne, ‘Addition of non-invasive test to screening for Down’s syndrome, Edward’s syndrome, Patau’s syndrome’ (3.11.2016). UK NSC blog <https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/2016/11/03/addition-of-non-invasive-test-to-improve-screening-for-pregnant-women/> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Mackie Anne, ‘NIPT to be evaluated as a new part of NHS screening pathway for Down’s syndrome, Edwards’ syndrome and Patau’s syndrome’ (1.6.2021) <https://phescreening.blog.gov.uk/2021/06/01/nipt-to-be-evaluated-as-a-new-part-of-nhs-screening-pathway-for-downs-syndrome-edwards-syndrome-and-pataus-syndrome/> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Marshall John, ‘Evidence update: consultation on non-invasive prenatal testing and latest UK NSC recommendations’ (13.8.2022). UK NSC blog <https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/2015/08/13/evidence-update-new-consultation-on-non-invasive-prenatal-testing-and-latest-uk-nsc-recommendations/>.
• Martini Nello and Marchetti Paolo, ‘Decreto sulle tariffe e aggiornamento dei LEA: una neverending story?’ Quotidiano Sanità (8.2.2022) <https://www.quotidianosanita.it/lettere-al-direttore/articolo.php?articolo_id=102142> accessed 6.4.2022.
• Mauthoor Zeenat, ‘Five things you should know about the UK NSC’ (7.6.2021). Uk National Screening Committe Blog <https://nationalscreening.blog.gov.uk/2021/06/07/five-things-you-should-know-about-the-uk-nsc/> accessed 23.3.2022.
• McHugh Annette, ‘NIPT procurement and launch update’ (28.1.2021) <https://phescreening.blog.gov.uk/2021/01/28/nipt-procurement-and-launch-update/> accessed 22.3.2023.
• Morris Anne M. ‘Pregnancy: Screening. Question for Department of Health and Social Care: UIN 251394 (Answer: Selma Kennedy)’ (7.5.2019) <https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2019-05-07/251394> accessed 23.3.2022.
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, ‘Antenatal care for uncomplicated pregnancies: Clinical guideline CG62’ (4.2.2019) <https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg62> accessed 23.3.2022.
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, ‘Antenatal care: Guideline NG201’ (19.8.2021) <https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng201/chapter/Recommendations> accessed 23.3.2022.
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, ‘Fertility problems: assessment and treatment: Clinical guideline [CG156]’ <https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg156> accessed 18.2.2022.
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, ‘Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems: Clinical guideline [CG11]’ (2004).
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, ‘Social value judgements: Principles for the development of NICE guidance’ (31.7.2008).
• Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften Leopoldina, ‘Ad-hoc-Stellungnahme Präimplantationsdiagnostik (PID): Auswirkungen einer begrenzten Zulassung in Deutschland’ (January 2011) <https://www.leopoldina.org/uploads/tx_leopublication/201101_natEmpf_PID-DE.pdf> accessed 6.9.2021.
• Nationaler Ethikrat, ‘Zur Frage einer Änderung des Stammzellgesetzes: Stellungnahme’ (2007) <https://www.ethikrat.org/fileadmin/Publikationen/Stellungnahmen/Archiv/Stn_Stammzellgesetz.pdf> accessed 2.2.2021.
• NHS England, ‘Clinical Commissioning Policy: Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)’ (2014) Reference: E01/P/a <https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/e01-med-gen-0414.pdf> accessed 18.2.2022.
• NHS England, ‘NHS England to fund ground-breaking new mitochondrial donation clinical trial’ <https://www.england.nhs.uk/2016/12/mitochondrial-donation/> accessed 22.4.2022.
• Nuffield Council on Bioethics, ‘Non-invasive prenatal testing. Summary of consultation responses’ (June 2017) <https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Analysis-of-NIPT-consultation-responses.pdf> accessed 24.3.2022.
• Nuffield Council on Bioethics, ‘Non-invasive Prenatal Testing: Ethical Issues’ (London 2017).
• Nuffield Council on Bioethics, ‘Non-invasive Prenatal Testing: Ethical Issues. Review of Activities Since Publication’ (November 2018) <https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Nuffield-Council-NIPT-review-of-activites.pdf> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology, ‘Research Briefing: Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis’ (September 2013) POSTNOTE Number 445 <https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-445/POST-PN-445.pdf> accessed 18.2.2022.
• Permalloo Nadia, ‘NIPT rolls out to all areas of England as part of the existing NHS screening pathway for Down’s syndrome, Edwards’ syndrome and Patau’s syndrome’ (1.7.2021) <https://phescreening.blog.gov.uk/2021/07/01/nipt-rolls-out-to-all-areas-of-england-as-part-of-the-existing-nhs-screening-pathway-for-downs-syndrome-edwards-syndrome-and-pataus-syndrome/> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Phillips Sally and Richards Clare, ‘A World Without Down's Syndrome’ (First Broadcast 5.10.2016) BBC <https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07ycbj5> accessed 6.4.2022.
• Public Health England, ‘Guidance. 20-week screening scan pathway requirements specification’ (21.6.2021) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/20-week-screening-scan-pathway-requirements-specification/20-week-screening-scan-pathway-requirements-specification> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Public Health England, ‘Guidance. Down’s syndrome, Edwards’ syndrome and Patau’s syndrome screening pathway requirements specification’ (21.6.2021) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/downs-syndrome-edwards-syndrome-and-pataus-syndrome-screening-pathway-requirements-specification/downs-syndrome-edwards-syndrome-and-pataus-syndrome-screening-pathway-requirements-specification> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Public Health England, ‘Guidance. Prenatal diagnosis’ (10.12.2021) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fetal-anomaly-screening-programme-handbook/prenatal-diagnosis> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Public Health England, ‘Guidance. Screening for Down’s syndrome, Edwards’ syndrome and Patau’s syndrome: NIPT’ (23.9.2021) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/screening-for-downs-syndrome-edwards-syndrome-and-pataus-syndrome-non-invasive-prenatal-testing-nipt/screening-for-downs-syndrome-edwards-syndrome-and-pataus-syndrome-nipt> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Public Health England, ‘Guidance. Screening for Down’s syndrome, Edwards’ syndrome and Patau’s syndrome’ (10.12.2021) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fetal-anomaly-screening-programme-handbook/screening-for-downs-syndrome-edwards-syndrome-and-pataus-syndrome--3#quadruple-test> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Public Health England, ‘Guidance. Screening tests for you and your baby’ (3.5.2019) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/screening-tests-for-you-and-your-baby> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Public Health Wales, ‘New screening for pregnant women to be offered in Wales’ <http://www.wales.nhs.uk/news/48260> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Regalado Antonio, ‘Engineering the Perfect Baby’ (3.5.2015) <https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535661/engineering-the-perfect-baby/> accessed 25.4.2022.
• Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, ‘A House for the Future’ (January 2020) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266061/prelims.pdf> accessed 27.1.2022.
• Senato della Repubblica, ‘M. Rizzotti. Legislatura 18 Atto di Sindacato Ispettivo n° 3-01021’ <https://www.senato.it/japp/bgt/showdoc/18/Sindisp/0/1118781/index.html> accessed 6.4.2022.
• Senato della Repubblica, ‘Ordine del Giorno n. G/1586 sez I/18/12 (testo 2) al DDL n. 1586’ <https://www.senato.it/japp/bgt/showdoc/frame.jsp?tipodoc=Emendc&leg=18&id=1126780&idoggetto=1134832> accessed 6.4.2022.
• Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) and BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN, Freie Demokratische Partei (FDP), ‘Mehr Fortschritt Wagen. Bündnis für Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit und Nachhaltigkeit’ <https://www.spd.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Koalitionsvertrag/Koalitionsvertrag_2021-2025.pdf> accessed 6.4.2022.
• Tomasi Marta, ‘Come è cambiata la legge 40 (2004-2017)’ <https://www.biodiritto.org/Dossier/Come-e-cambiata-la-legge-40-2004-2017> accessed 26.5.2021.
• UK National Screening Committee, ‘Criteria for appraising the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of a screening programme’ (23.10.2015) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-review-criteria-national-screening-programmes/criteria-for-appraising-the-viability-effectiveness-and-appropriateness-of-a-screening-programme> accessed 23.3.2022.
• UK National Screening Committee, ‘Minutes 25 June 2021’ <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nsc-meeting-june-2021/uk-nsc-minutes-june-2021-draft> accessed 23.3.2022.
• UK National Screening Committee, ‘Note of the meeting held on the 18 June 2015’ <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nsc-meeting-june-2015> accessed 23.3.2022.
• UK National Screening Committee, ‘Note of the meeting held on the 19 November 2015’ <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nsc-meeting-november-2015> accessed 23.3.2022.
• UK National Screening Committee, ‘Note of the meeting held on the 23 June 2017’ <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nsc-meeting-june-2017> accessed 23.3.2022.
• UK National Screening Committee, ‘Note of the meeting held on the 28 October 2020’ <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nsc-meeting-october-2020> accessed 23.3.2022.
• UK National Screening Committee, ‘Note of the meeting held on the 29 June 2018’ <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nsc-meeting-june-2018> accessed 23.3.2022.
• UK National Screening Committee, ‘Note of the meeting held on the 31 October 2018’ <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nsc-meeting-october-2018> accessed 23.3.2022.
• UK National Screening Committee, ‘Note of the meeting held on the 8 November 2019’ <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nsc-meeting-november-2019> accessed 23.3.2022.
• UK National Screening Committee, ‘Review of the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC): Recommendations’ (June 2015) <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/443953/20150602_-_Final_Recommendations.pdf> accessed 23.3.2022.
• UK National Screening Committee, ‘Screening in the UK: making effective recommendations: 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018’ Ref: PHE gateway number 2018283 <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/733226/Screening_in_the_UK_making_effective_recommendations_2017_to_2018.pdf> accessed 23.3.2022.
• UK National Screening Committee, ‘UK NSC ethical framework for screening’ (10.8.2021) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nsc-ethical-framework-for-screening/uk-nsc-ethical-framework-for-screening> accessed 23.3.2022.
• UK National Screening Committee, ‘UK NSC non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) recommendation’ (01.2016) <https://legacyscreening.phe.org.uk/policydb_download.php?doc=602> accessed 23.3.2022.
• UK Parliament, ‘Early Day Motion 44: Down's Syndrome, Don't Screen Us Out Campaign’ (19.5.2016) <https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/49295/downs-syndrome-dont-screen-us-out-campaign> accessed 23.3.2022.
• Warnock Mary, ‘Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology’ (London 1984) <https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2608/warnock-report-of-the-committee-of-inquiry-into-human-fertilisation-and-embryology-1984.pdf> accessed 25.1.2022.
• WHO Executive Board, ‘Health Intervention and Technology Assessment in Support of Universal Health Coverage: Report by the Secretariat’ (14.1.2014) EB 134/30 <https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/172848> accessed 9.8.2022.
• World Health Organization, ‘Basic Documents’ (2020) <https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf> accessed 25.4.2022.