Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-07-Speech-4-098"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000907.2.4-098"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Therapeutic cloning entails creating an embryo by cloning only to destroy it afterwards, in order to remove cells for medical research purposes and, later perhaps, with a view to curing currently fatal diseases. So the intention cannot be said to be a bad one. The method, however, is highly questionable, for at least two reasons. First, a life is created (either by using a surplus embryo originally destined to create a new human being, or by using a cloned embryo), and then it is destroyed to save another one. Do we have the right to create in this way categories of sub-humans that can be manipulated at will? Quite obviously, I think not.
Secondly, although everyone agrees that human cloning must be condemned in general, some people are trying to draw a distinction between ‘reproductive cloning’ (aimed at reproducing a complete human being), which would be banned, and ‘therapeutic cloning’, which could be authorised under supervision, subject to certain limits, and provided it is not carried out for commercial purposes. But that is an artificial distinction, since it is based on the intention behind the cloning, whereas the act itself is identical in both cases: therapeutic cloning also essentially involves the reproduction of embryos by cloning. All cloning is by definition reproductive.
The cloning of embryos for research purposes, or even the mere use of surplus embryos for these purposes, would amount to crossing an invisible boundary beyond which the exploitation of human life would become acceptable. We would be entering a different society, one contrary to our values.
One solution to this dilemma would be to speed up research into the possibility of obtaining stem cells from adult organs, which could be clearly earmarked for therapeutic purposes, as called for in the resolution tabled by our fellow Members, Elisabeth Montfort and Nicole Thomas-Mauro. That kind of procedure would be acceptable, since it is comparable to organ donation. Looking ahead, that suggests that perhaps our current questions concern only a transitional stage in the research. At any rate, we hope so.
Unfortunately, the working party, which has dubbed itself a ‘Convention’, responsible for preparing the first draft of a Charter of Fundamental Human Rights is about to take a wrong turning here. Article 3 of the draft, as it stands, confines itself to prohibiting ‘the reproductive cloning of human beings’, i.e. it perpetuates the false distinction that we reject. I tabled an amendment on this point, together with a few other Members, but although it was worded in very moderate terms, it has not, to date, been accepted. Really, from whatever angle we look at this Charter, it is impossible to find any virtue in it whatsoever."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples