the legal ontology of persons: the transbeman example david koepsell suny buffalo/yale university

The Legal Ontology of

Persons:The Transbeman Example

David KoepsellSUNY Buffalo/Yale University

Introduction

Non-technical, but important high-level issue that impacts numerous in-use ontologies.

Personhood is assumed in numerous ontologies, both social and biomedical.

Needs clarity, in light of developments in GO, OBO, and developments likely to occur in AI.

The Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007

e.g: The Gene Ontology

Discerning the relationships among genomes and phenotypes is the project of the Gene Ontology.

Molecular

function

Cellular compone

nt

Biological

process



The gene ontology, when completed, should give us an accurate picture of the organism’s phenotype from its genotype

Molecular

function

Cellular compone

nt

Biological

processThe Law of Transbeman Persons, Colloquium 2007


But there is more to people than phenotypes. The legally, socially, and culturally important object “person” is that which carries rights, owes duties, and is considered relevant in social ontologies.

Molecular

function

Cellular compone

nt

Biological

process

Persons? ?

?


Overbroad and Insufficient

“Persons” are important in medical and social ontologies in ways that other objects are not. The Gene Ontology does not distinguish persons from other creatures, nor should it necessarily. Genes, for the most part, carry out similar or identical functions across species, and the purpose of the Gene Ontology is to describe relations among genes, proteins, cellular functions and biological processes in general.


Overbroad and Insufficient

Nonetheless, one could superimpose the human genome on the completed gene ontology, and have a full understanding of humans at the biomechanical level, or any creature for that matter.

Completed Gene Ontology

humanspenguins

fruit flies


Overbroad and InsufficientBut the social

object “person” is not, and perhaps cannot be, contemplated by the Gene Ontology. We need a separate ontology of “persons.”

Completed Gene Ontology

humans penguin

s

fruit fliesPerson

s


Persons and Biology

molecule

cellular compone

nt

organism

Person

intending

owing duties

bearing

rightsEmergent properties of personhood are

ontologically related but not dependent upon the GO


Bridging the GapGenomic data certainly encodes information

about individual humans, but the person is a complex continuant, with certain properties which, although dependent upon a particular organism’s genome, are nonetheless not described solely by that genome, but rather by something more... like the individual’s history...

? life


Bridging the GapAn ontology of

personhood would include the human portion of the gene ontology, as well as whatever other necessary and sufficient conditions of personhood. It would also account for non-biological forms of persons

GOsentience

intentionality

Personhood


The Need for a Bridge

Persons are the legally, socially and culturally relevant level of granularity in social ontologies (such as legal ontologies). They bear rights, owe duties, are the subjects and objects of laws. If medical ontologies are to communicate with legal ontologies, there should be a bridge.

legal/social

ontologies

GO/OBO


Legal Objects and the GO

There are already some legally and socially relevant categories known to be encompassed by the genome. Some genetic diseases produce persistent and legally relevant mental states... e.g aph-1b and schizophrenia

Gene Summary (APH1B)Gene Symbol PSFLOMIM 607630Accession # NP_112591.1 ncbi.nlm.nih.govthis link leaves BiocompareAlternate names Anterior pharynx defective 1 homolog BAph-1bAph1 betaGamma secretase subunit APH1BPresenilin stabilization factor likePSFL


social and legal

categories

gene ontolog

y

Legal Objects and the GO

Certain cognitive and mental states and phenotypes, including genetic defects affecting rights (e.g. genetic disabilities covered under the ADA), and even ethnic and racial distinctions recognized by by society, culture, and the law relate to the genome.


Biomedicine and Law

Biomedical and legal/social ontologies should communicate. Certainly, medical classifications matter in legal ontologies. For instance, criminal liability only attaches to sane, competent adults. Where medical criteria effect sanity and competence, these criteria should be available for legal use. This is already done, in a way, through use of expert testimony.... why not also expert systems?


Biomedicine and Law

In fact, all social ontologies already assume the existence of the “person” as distinct from the organism. Ethical issues, such as abortion, stem cell research, depend on distinctions between humans and persons. Blastocysts, fetuses, rights-bearing persons and a fresh human corpse are all legally and socially distinct, even though they may be biomechanically (at least at certain phases) identical. (also, e.g., those in PVS, though neurologically distinct from other humans).


Ontology of Personhood

A complete ontology of the person will include all relevant descriptions of any emergent features of organisms, and account for the structure of persons apart from biology.

What does this have to do with the GO or OBO? The genes responsible for sentience, intentionality, and higher-order functions of human persons will be links, but personhood will never properly be a part of the GO or OBO (though “human” surely is).



Objections/problems

Isn’t this just science?

As with other needed domains or ontologies, yes. Social/legal ontologies already assume and comprise some understanding of a person, but a comprehensive and sound ontology of personhood is necessary as a bridge to other scientific ontologies. Consider its use in insurance, criminal law, medicine, in helping to identify rights and duties associated with persons.



Objections/problems

Isn’t this terribly complicated?

Yes. No one said it would be easy. But current social ontologies all hinge on some recognition of the entity “person.” We should define those features necessary and sufficient for personhood and provide linkage to biomedical ontologies which often also assume this entity.


TransbemanismSocial and biological ontologies are developing

considering necessary conditions for personhood. What must yet be done is to define the sufficient conditions, separate and apart from existing ontologies.

existing legal ontologies provide a point of departure

as we have seen, biology alone is overbroad and insufficient in defining legally and socially relevant category “person”

New forms of persons will emerge, challenging existing biomedical ontologies.


the legal ontology of persons: the transbeman example david koepsell suny buffalo/yale university

Documents

gene ontologythe gene

completed gene ontology

legal ontology of persons

separate ontology of

gene ontologydiscerning

gene ontologybut

gapan ontology of personhood

social ontologies