Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The United Nation’s recent decision to postpone a convention banning
human cloning, as reported by Mayor[1], is a prudent—if also politically
suave—accommodation for those countries that either advocate or remain
unsure about its potential therapeutic uses.
Mayor reports that the stand-in UN declaration unflinchingly condemns
reproductive cloning, urging “states to adopt and implement national
legislation prohibiting attempts to create human life through cloning.”
Though this position may be supported throughout member nation
delegations, its defensibility as a proper concern of the UN has not been
firmly established.
How does reproductive cloning relate to the directives of the UN
charter? “Promoting and encouraging respect for human rights” is perhaps
the closest candidate[2], but embracing this loose interpretation surely
yields the UN mandate greater scope than desired. Abortion and euthanasia
might well be considered fair game for international regulation under this
expanded reading.
Rather than echoing knee-jerk fears of clandestine baby labs and
maverick scientists, the UN should avoid prescriptive legal constraints on
reproductive cloning. Public consensus on the issue may indeed be more
fragmented than suggested by national representatives, and opinions might
sway considerably in the future. Potentially useful discourse could easily
become suppressed by prior UN involvement.
The UN would also do well to remember the brouhaha preceding in vitro
fertilization three decades ago[3,4]. If history is a guide, reproductive
cloning may in fact be less like science fiction and more beneficial than
currently imagined.
Passing early judgment can only establish a dangerous political
precedent for the future of technology and medicine.
References:
1. Mayor S. UN delays decision on human cloning. BMJ 2004 Nov
27;329:1258.
3. Gaylin W. "The Frankenstein Myth Becomes Reality-We Have the Awful
Knowledge to Make Exact Copies of Human Beings." The New York Times
Magazine, 5 March 1972.
4. Howard T, Rifkin J. Who Should Play God. New York: Dell
Publishing; 1977.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests:
No competing interests
05 December 2004
Jason P Lott
Gamble Scholar and medical student
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States
A United Nation's Role in Reproductive Cloning?
Editor—
The United Nation’s recent decision to postpone a convention banning
human cloning, as reported by Mayor[1], is a prudent—if also politically
suave—accommodation for those countries that either advocate or remain
unsure about its potential therapeutic uses.
Mayor reports that the stand-in UN declaration unflinchingly condemns
reproductive cloning, urging “states to adopt and implement national
legislation prohibiting attempts to create human life through cloning.”
Though this position may be supported throughout member nation
delegations, its defensibility as a proper concern of the UN has not been
firmly established.
How does reproductive cloning relate to the directives of the UN
charter? “Promoting and encouraging respect for human rights” is perhaps
the closest candidate[2], but embracing this loose interpretation surely
yields the UN mandate greater scope than desired. Abortion and euthanasia
might well be considered fair game for international regulation under this
expanded reading.
Rather than echoing knee-jerk fears of clandestine baby labs and
maverick scientists, the UN should avoid prescriptive legal constraints on
reproductive cloning. Public consensus on the issue may indeed be more
fragmented than suggested by national representatives, and opinions might
sway considerably in the future. Potentially useful discourse could easily
become suppressed by prior UN involvement.
The UN would also do well to remember the brouhaha preceding in vitro
fertilization three decades ago[3,4]. If history is a guide, reproductive
cloning may in fact be less like science fiction and more beneficial than
currently imagined.
Passing early judgment can only establish a dangerous political
precedent for the future of technology and medicine.
References:
1. Mayor S. UN delays decision on human cloning. BMJ 2004 Nov
27;329:1258.
2. United Nations. Charter of the United Nations. [online]. 1947.
[cited 30 Nov 2004] Available from:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter.
3. Gaylin W. "The Frankenstein Myth Becomes Reality-We Have the Awful
Knowledge to Make Exact Copies of Human Beings." The New York Times
Magazine, 5 March 1972.
4. Howard T, Rifkin J. Who Should Play God. New York: Dell
Publishing; 1977.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests