|
|
U.N. Debate on Cloning Ends in Indecision 10/8/2003 Support grows for total ban.
The U.N. committee tasked with formulating a treaty to ban human cloning ended a week of debate by acknowledging its lack of agreement on what a ban should include. Pro-life lobbyists at the meeting, including this writer, were encouraged by the increase in countries that support a total ban on human cloning. About 50 countries expressed support for this, the Costa Rican proposal to ban human cloning, while about 20 countries supported a partial ban on human cloning.
Friday’s final session began with Belgium introducing a draft resolution that reflected Germany’s two-step approach of dealing with human cloning. Last year, Germany and France championed a proposal to ban only reproductive cloning. This year, Germany informally introduced a bifurcated approach to address both reproductive cloning and so-called therapeutic cloning, which appears to some delegates as a form of compromise. But to those who understand practical reality, it is effectively the same as sanctioning the cloning of human embryos to experiment upon and kill.
The Chairman’s Report, a summary of the committee's proceedings, describes the current impasse faced by countries that want a total ban on human cloning vs. those who desire a partial ban. A partial ban would prohibit cloning to produce a live baby but allow countries the option of banning, imposing a moratorium, or regulating other forms of cloning (i.e., creating human clones for research).
Due to internal pressure, Germany presented its proposal in a “non-paper,” so it is not recorded in any U.N. documents. Belgium adopted this proposal, introducing it as a draft resolution co-sponsored by Belarus, Brazil, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Japan, Liechtenstein, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Greece, Singapore, Slovenia and Turkey later joined in.
The Chairman’s report accurately summarized the division:
There was concern that developments in the medical sciences and genetic research, despite the possibility that they offered curing diseases, could be used to breach human rights and to violate the intrinsic dignity of all human beings. Indeed, it was stated that the dignity of human life does not tolerate the testing of human embryos, whatever the objective. In that regard, the view was expressed that an embryo is a human being in the earliest stages of formation and thus the killing of embryos for therapeutic purposes constituted a grave attack on the dignity of mankind. It was also pointed out that human cloning degrades the human being into a mere object of industrial production and manipulation.
The view was likewise expressed that cloning for “therapeutic” or “experimental” purposes was inherently risky, especially for donor women. Indeed, concern was expressed that the demand for human eggs would disproportionately affect the poor and marginalized women, resulting in a new form of discrimination. Similarly, the prospect of the successful development of therapeutic techniques was considered limited, and of dubious value, especially in light of the serious ethical implications it raised, arising from the deliberate production and destruction of a viable alternative with proved results. In terms of another suggestion, States were urged to allocate those funds that would otherwise be spent on human cloning techniques, toward other issues such as human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), infant mortality and morbidity, famine and desertification.
It was also stated that a partial ban, limited only to cloning for reproductive purposes, would be a false ban, since it would be confusing, ineffective and impossible to enforce. It would also lead to the unacceptable result of embryos being exploited as commodities for commercial use. Instead, only a complete ban on all forms of human embryonic cloning would achieve the goal of prohibiting human reproductive cloning, and would be more durable. Similarly, an all-inclusive convention would properly allow States to formulate appropriate domestic legislation on human cloning.
Some other speakers were of a different view. It was recalled that the mandate of the Working Group was limited to establishing a negotiation mandate for the elaboration of an international convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings. The Working Group’s attention was drawn to recent announcements of the birth of cloned humans, which, although not confirmed, had highlighted the urgent need for an international ban on reproductive cloning of human beings. It was stated that a lack of universally binding regulations dealing with any type of cloning of human beings constituted an open invitation for certain scientists to undertake the kind of research which was considered by all to be morally repugnant and contrary to human dignity. Indeed, some speakers supporting a narrower ban on cloning for reproductive purposes pointed out that their own domestic legislation already banned all forms of cloning. Hence, their support for a narrower approach was based solely on pragmatic reasons: It was viewed as the only possible basis on which to achieve consensus at the international level.
The Chairman indicated that an Ad Hoc Committee would continue working and report back to the 6th Committee on October 20 –21, 2003. Further meetings will be scheduled for February and September 2004. The momentum in the direction of a total ban, and France and Germany’s unwillingness to sign onto their own proposal, cheers pro-family lobbyists, who will continue talking with undecided delegations as the process carries on. |
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 |
Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives
