|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. supported by private funds in nonuniversity settings and is likely to be performed outside the United States. The following table provides a summary of the current arguments and counterarguments regarding human reproductive cloning. Responses are based on the literature (see especially [5; 6] and references cited in Chapter 3) and the testimony of other scientists. WHAT PROTECTIONS SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO HUMAN SUBJECTS WHO PARTICIPATE IN HUMAN CLONING?Any participant in human reproductive cloning would require at least the same protection afforded to a participant in any other kind of research. Two overarching international codes provide the basic principles for protecting humans who participate in experiments. The Nuremberg Code [50], was articulated in 1947 by the U.S. Military Tribunal No. 1 at the “Doctor’s Trial.” The Nuremberg Code indicates the following (italics added for emphasis): “1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity. 2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature. 3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
|
|
|||||||||||||||
