Human Cloning Agreement

With this vote, it became clear that the chances of a binding treaty on human cloning were practically nil. Participants began discussing an exit strategy: instead of insisting on a binding treaty, they would focus on a non-binding declaration. But it was little more than a facial preservation measure. Over the next fifteen months, the struggle and lobbying continued, but the objectives and key players had changed considerably. While France and Germany, at the beginning of the UN cloning debate, were working to lead the world on a topic on which they thought there was a broad consensus in favor of an intermediate position, these two countries had now pulled out of the margins, with supporters of both polarized positions taking the lead in seeking a symbolic victory for their side, by winning as many countries as possible in favour of an insignificant solution. In the last divided vote in March 2005, the United Nations concluded its attempt to negotiate a mandatory treatment of human cloning. The impact of these international instruments is particularly important for the three countries that have both ratified them: Portugal (which has no legislation), Greece (whose legislation only expressly prohibits) and Spain (which has comprehensive legislation in this area). In Greece, the explanatory memorandum to the legislation states that ` . whereas therapeutic cloning is authorized in accordance with Article 1(1) of the Additional Protocol on cloning. We understand that the Conservative public considers that this interpretation is contrary to Article 18(2) of the Convention itself. However, neither the Convention nor the Protocol on Cloning provides for penalties for infringements. Morales NM (2009) Psychological aspects of cloning and genetic manipulation of human beings: the identity and uniqueness of man. Online reproductive biomedicine; 19 (s2): 43-50.

The UN declaration on human cloning bans „all forms of human cloning to the extent that they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life, but the lack of support it has received from some Member States and the ambiguous way in which it can be interpreted prompted UNESCO to create a working group in 2008 composed of members of its International Bioethics Committee. Human cloning is prohibited by Presidential Decree 200/97 of 7 March 1997. [49] Isasi RM and Annas GJ (2006) To clone alone: The United Nations human cloning declaration. development; 49 (4): 60–67. Although this provision does not mention cloning, it was taken to protect in vitro embryos and thus prohibit NRC. In addition, doctors must follow the guidelines of the Medical Council, as this body has the power to withdraw them from their licence to operate in Ireland. The medical council`s guidelines state that „the creation of new life forms for experimental purposes or the deliberate and deliberate destruction of already formed human life is professional misconduct“ [9]. .

. .