(Cartoon compliments of Zapiro)
The proposed regulations published for review on Jan. 5, 2007 can be found here.
Section 9.a states:
"[Ownership of] excess embryos from in vitro fertilisation, for the purpose of research, is vested with the donor."
"[Ownership of] excess embryos from in vitro fertilisation, for the purpose of research, is vested with the donor."
While Section 10.a states:
"[Ownership of stem cells derived from] excess embryos for the purpose of research, is vested with the State."
For those not savvy with the SCR method -- harvesting stem cells from an embryo effectively destroys it.
The problem is that these 'embryos' are immature human beings. This is supported by medical, embryological and biological science. From the moment of fertilization, this genetically unique entity will require only nutrition, oxygen and a suitable environment to develop into a fetus, baby, toddler, adolescent and ultimately adult human being. This dynamic process of growth gives very little in the form of distinct moments where functional humanity can be determined.
Bioethicists may use Personhood Theory or suchlike to propose that these embryos aren't in fact human -- or rather they're not human enough to be entitled to any of the rights that functioning humans are (e.g. the right to life). In response, there are convincing rebuttals which suggest that the latency exhibited by embryological/fetal growth is fundamentally comparable to the functional latency of sleep or a short-term comatose state. If the likes of Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, had their way, parents would be able to 'off' their retarded children.
The problem is that these 'embryos' are immature human beings. This is supported by medical, embryological and biological science. From the moment of fertilization, this genetically unique entity will require only nutrition, oxygen and a suitable environment to develop into a fetus, baby, toddler, adolescent and ultimately adult human being. This dynamic process of growth gives very little in the form of distinct moments where functional humanity can be determined.
Bioethicists may use Personhood Theory or suchlike to propose that these embryos aren't in fact human -- or rather they're not human enough to be entitled to any of the rights that functioning humans are (e.g. the right to life). In response, there are convincing rebuttals which suggest that the latency exhibited by embryological/fetal growth is fundamentally comparable to the functional latency of sleep or a short-term comatose state. If the likes of Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, had their way, parents would be able to 'off' their retarded children.
Obfuscation aside, I suggest that the DOH is grossly neglecting clear scientific evidence by allowing free reign to embryonic experimentation and to crown it all claiming ownership of another human's stem cells: biotech slavery.
