Zeev's Turnips Patch-No Politics (ZEEV)

[mainehiker]

A Fight at the U.N. Over Cloning
NY Times
Published: November 5, 2003

>>I will add this will ban therapeutic cloning that could help billions of live people and you all know my feelings on this, and the "fight" referenced in title above is one the US started, read Buxx) Politics has no place in medicine or this board, but when politics affects investing/and our lives, it does, and i wont rest on this.<<

The Bush administration is campaigning hard at the United Nations for a convention that would ban all forms of human cloning, a position more extreme than it has been able to sell in this country. When the issue comes up for a vote in the General Assembly tomorrow, member states would be wise to ignore the American campaign and instead chart a course that would allow therapeutic cloning, the use of embryonic stem cells in experiments to search for cures for a wide range of diseases. This is no time to snuff out promising medical research by imposing rigid moral restraints that are far from universally accepted.

The General Assembly will actually be considering three competing proposals. One resolution, sponsored by Costa Rica and pushed strongly by the United States, is backed by more than 60 countries. It calls for a round of negotiations to produce an international convention banning all forms of cloning, both reproductive cloning, to produce a baby identical to its genetic parent, and therapeutic cloning, for medical purposes. A more moderate resolution, sponsored by Belgium and backed by more than 20 other countries, including Britain, Japan and China, would ban only reproductive cloning and would leave the fate of therapeutic cloning up to individual nations. And a third position, championed by many Islamic nations, would defer the issue for two years.

The U.N. itself has no authority to ban research, but the nations that sign a convention are expected to follow through with legislation.

In the national debate on cloning, this page has opposed reproductive cloning as too risky but supported therapeutic cloning because of its potential medical value. Drawing that distinction would make sense in the international arena as well. Should that position seem likely to fall short in the General Assembly, however, it would be better to postpone the vote for two years rather than endorsing a total ban, which would foreclose research of potentially great value.>>