Last year professor R. J. Berry was here in Australia and spoke on these (and
other) issues. He had been involved with the Church of England's ethics committee
in such areas. As I recall the C of E report accepted the 14 day limit and, in
recommended it in their report to parliament. If people are interested I can try
and hunt up the relevant reports.
respectfully Jon
george murphy wrote:
> Moorad -
> Thanks for posting this. Our local (Akron) beacon Journal had only a
> very brief summary. 2 comments -
> 1) Many Christians will be upset by such experimentation on a human
> conceptus at any stage of development. I think concern about that is
> appropriate. OTOH, up to approximately the 14 day limit mentioned here,
> separation into two (or more) viable embryos is possible. This raises questions
> about whether one can plausibly claim that an ambryo at a much earlier stage of
> development is a unique human person.
> 2) It seems to have been taken for granted in the parliamentary debate
> that cloning "must stay illegal". Perhaps this was only for public conception.
> Still, I think we should ask, "Why?"
>
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
> Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>
> > WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 20 2000
> >
> > MPs give go ahead for embryo research
> >
> > BY PHILIP WEBSTER AND GREG HURST
> >
> > CONTROVERSIAL research involving the cloning of human embryos was backed by
> > MPs after an impassioned Commons debate last night.
> > After a rare free vote MPs supported an amendment to the Human Fertilisation
> > and Embryo Act by 366 votes to 174. It could pave the way to finding a cure
> > for chronic degenerative diseases such as Parkinsons and Alzheimers.
> >
> > The decision came after Yvette Cooper, the Public Health Minister, appealed
> > for scientists to be given the go-ahead for stem cell research, denying that
> > it was a slippery slope to human cloning. The vote came in the face of
> > fierce opposition from pro-life campaigners.
> >
> > Ms Cooper told the Commons that the research could hold the key to healing
> > within the human body, giving hope not only to those suffering from
> > degenerative diseases but also cancer and heart disease victims. There are
> > immense potential benefits from allowing this research to go ahead,
> > particularly for those suffering from dreadful chronic disease.
> >
> > She said there were strong reasons to back the regulations, which were a
> > sensible extension of the existing law and would be subject to a strict
> > regulatory framework and limited to embryos up to 14 days old.
> >
> > Strongly denying that the move could lead to human reproductive cloning, Ms
> > Cooper insisted: Parliament is not being asked to cross the Rubicon today.
> > Human reproductive cloning is illegal and must stay illegal. Under these
> > regulations it will stay illegal. The idea of cloning babies is completely
> > unacceptable to the House and public opinion as well.
> >
> > In a well-attended session the debate cut across traditional party lines.
> > Although most Labour MPs strongly supported the change, 73 did not. Some
> > Conservatives backed the research.
> >
> > Liam Fox, the Shadow Health Secretary, voiced his personal opposition to the
> > use of embryo cells, saying he was not convinced there was no alternative.
> > Dr Fox, a former general practitioner, said: The benefits of the medical
> > revolution are immense from limb grafts and transplantation to the
> > elimination of diseases. But the medical revolution carries with it moral,
> > ethical and philosophical consequences and our ability to deal with these
> > matters sometimes lags behind our technical knowledge.
> >
> > Just because we can do something does not mean we have to. We need to
> > establish a clear framework within which to operate. He said that the rules
> > should have been introduced in a new Bill rather than in amendments to
> > existing legislation.
> >
> > Copyright 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 20 2000 - 14:40:22 EST