Human Cloning Agreement

There are, of course, many nations that have long had laws relevant to the cloning of technologies. However, in many of these countries, laws were developed before Dolly and recent advances in stem cell research. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to know how these laws could be applied to the application of cloning. Moreover, these laws are not the result of public and political dialogue on complex scientific and ethical issues related to cloning and stem cell technologies. [10] In addition, there are a number of countries where recent legislative interventions have not answered all legal issues related to human cloning. The representative of Spain stated that the term "human life" contained in the text was confusing and should be replaced by the term "man" as used in scientific texts. The statement did not cover the known fundamental differences between the two types of cloning. The fact that there was no consensus on this issue after four years of discussion showed how precarious the text as adopted was. Spain opposed reproductive cloning, but supported therapeutic cloning, which was well received by the scientific community. The matter would now be forwarded to the National Parliament.

Representatives of the Netherlands said that his country had opposed the declaration because it could be interpreted as a total ban on all forms of cloning. It was necessary to put in place strict surveillance, but no total ban. The declaration that has just been adopted was not binding. In summary, most regulatory outcomes could be explained consistently by reference to one or more underlying ethical positions. Similar or even identical regulatory results therefore imply less ethical agreement than some people think. The Dutch legislation, the Embryo Act 2002, is an example of this. This law prohibits procedures for the creation of people genetically identical to humans and prohibits the production of embryos for research. Nevertheless, the publication of the law, at p. 33, allows the ban on the production of embryos for research to be lifted in the future. Similarly, recently passed Canadian legislation stipulates that a parliamentary review of the law is required within three years of proclamation. The representative of Hungary said that he had voted in favour of the declaration because it attached the utmost importance to the message that the birth of cloned people was not acceptable. Moreover, during the implementation of life sciences, it was necessary to strike a delicate balance between freedom of research and the proper protection of human life and dignity.

In addition, the declaration was in line with Hungary`s existing international obligations. He hoped that the explanation would be only one step in the examination of human cloning and not the final step. Hungary was open to further discussions within the international community when the time came. The idea was revived in 2014 as part of the IBC`s work on the human genome.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.