 |
 |
In a message dated 21/09/2007 07:08:25 GMT Standard Time, [log in to unmask] writes: UN Still Deeply Divided on Cloning Declaration By Bernard Siegel, J.D.* On Feb. 18, 2005, the Sixth Committee (Legal) of the United Nations recommended to the General Assembly the adoption of a declaration on human cloning by which Member States would be called on to prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life. This non-binding, political declaration, as amended, was passed with 71 votes in favor, 35 against and 43 abstaining. This draft resolution entitled "United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning" further called upon Member States to adopt all measures necessary to protect adequately human life and the application of life science, as well as measures necessary to prohibit the application of genetic engineering techniques that may be contrary to human dignity. The torturous route leading to this Declaration commenced more than three years ago and was marked by very sharp divisions among various coalitions deliberating on the "International Convention Against Reproduction of Human Beings." The contentious issue of the moral status of the embryo transformed the debate on this straightforward call by the General Assembly for a legal ban on reproductive cloning. What emerged in the Sixth Committee in 2003 were two treaty proposals. The Costa Rican treaty (most notably backed by the United States) which in an indirect fashion morally condemned nuclear transfer research and called for a global treaty that would have encompassed a ban of both reproductive and therapeutic cloning. In contrast, a treaty proposal by Belgium drew a distinction between reproductive and therapeutic cloning, calling for a prohibition against reproductive cloning while seeking to preserve at the national level a possibility of cloning for therapeutic purposes through the establishment of appropriate controls. By November 2004 the previously favored Costa Rican proposal had lost momentum. At that point of political stalemate, Italy proposed as an alternative a non-binding declaration addressing human cloning issues. The new quarrel would be to determine the exact language of the declaration. All sides attempted to negotiate satisfactory language to avoid a vote. In the end the negotiations failed, and thus the divided vote. It should be noted that very few countries with the immediate potential to accomplish nuclear transfer research voted for the Declaration and afterwards several countries placed on the record their explanation for their vote. The United States representative explained that the Declaration clearly set forth the abhorrence of cloning, that her country had always emphasized the incompatibility of all human cloning with human dignity and that "no human life should ever be produced to be destroyed for the benefit of another." The representative of the Republic of Korea noted that "human life" meant different things in different countries, cultures and religions and that the ambiguous term was subject to interpretation. That therapeutic cloning research could potentially save countless people from needless suffering. Singapore's representative stated that no single State should be allowed to hold sway over other States on issues founded on values and beliefs and that it was unfortunate that concerns for the abhorrent prospect of reproductive cloning was "hijacked" by those wanting to ban cloning for beneficial medical purposes. The United Kingdom's representative noted that therapeutic cloning was permitted in his country because of the hope it offered of new treatments to benefit millions of people and their families. The research in the UK would continue. The declaration ultimately must still go before the General Assembly for final approval. In the final analysis, this weak non-binding declaration passed by a plurality 71 out of a potential 191 votes. In his closing remarks, Committee Chair Mohamed Bennouna (Morocco) said it was important that the Committee has adopted a declaration on cloning which marked the end of a stage of the debate. "It is what it is, with its weaknesses and strengths," he said. For any nation looking for guidance on regulation of cloning issues, the Declaration is a model of poor draftsmanship, lacking clarity, precision or a definition of any term. To those researchers engaged in NT, and for others in the scientific community, the declaration is most significant in what it is not. It is not binding and is not a treaty. What ultimately transpires in the UN on this Declaration it will not slow the advance of nuclear transfer research. *Bernard Siegel is the Executive Director of the Genetics Policy Institute (www.genpol.org). Posted: February 22, 2005 Rayilyn Brown Board Member AZNPF Arizona Chapter National Parkinson's Foundation [log in to unmask] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn That's a very positive sign - if they're divided, they're arguing, which means they're giving it serious thought whether intended or not. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn