Therapeutic cloning in Australia: one small stem from man, one giant leap for mankind

In 2002 the Australian Parliament enacted legislation which prohibited both therapeutic and reproductive embryonic cloning. Just four years later, in December 2006, this same legislation was amended, reversing the prohibition on therapeutic cloning, while retaining the ban on reproductive cloning. The Prime Minister, sensing the political mood, allowed a conscience vote. This contrasted with his decision several months earlier against introducing any changes to the 2002 Act, despite 54 recommendations having been made by a Statutory Review Committee. Approval of the legislation had as much to do with the careful drafting of the provisions as with any rational, social or scientific factor. The legislation is narrow in scope, retains an absolute prohibition on reproductive cloning and contains strict regulations with heavy criminal penalties. The Act requires a review after three years. A number of questions remain. Does stem cell research demand a global rather than a local approach, by way of an international Covenant? Does the legal status of a cloned embryo need further examination? Will the embryo have a separate legal standing recognised by law? These are some of the questions which will need addressing as the law tries to keep up with science.     

No end in sight to cloning debate.

Since last August, Great Britain has allowed the cloning for research purposes. This fact has re-generated an existing debate, taking into account the prohibition of cloning of the UN, the States are debating whether cloning should be prohibited or in the contrary, it should also be admitted for reproductive purposes. This situation has generated an international uneasiness due to the lack of a universal consensus. This article analyses this situation, bringing the reader closer to the very controversial texts, such as the European Constitution and the UN Convention on Cloning.     

The United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning of 03-08-05]

Although the United Nation's Declaration on the Cloning of Human Beings has prohibited the cloning of human beings, the narration of the norm has not meant a strict and clear prohibition of the ban. Additionally, the text was not adopted by a wide majority of the member States and that means that it is a mere declaratory text that leaves open the debate on therapeutic cloning.     

刑法学视域下的克隆人及其立法

克隆人是现代生命科技发展带给人类社会的一个挑战。从技术应用的目的上看,克隆可以被划分为治疗性克隆与生殖性克隆。在有关克隆人是否具有犯罪性以及刑法应否禁止克隆人的问题上,存在着"肯定论"与"否定论"两种截然相反的观点。站在刑法的视域下,生殖性克隆人是一种完全不同于治疗性克隆人的行为,它无法摆脱伦理上的非难性,已经超出了社会可承受的范围,其本质是一种反社会的犯罪行为,对于这种行为,刑法应当将其入罪化,并配设适宜的刑事责任。当前我国现行立法中已经对生殖性克隆人作出了明令禁止,但却未就从事生殖性克隆人研究的刑事责任作出任何规定,也未出台有关克隆技术规范的专门立法。为此,需要制定一部《克隆技术管理法》,并修改现行刑法的规定,增设"非法从事生殖性人体克隆研究罪"。     

The regulation of science and the Charter of Rights: would a ban on non-reproductive human cloning unjustifiably violate freedom of expression?

Non-Reproductive Human Cloning (NRHC) allows researchers to develop and clone cells, including non-reproductive cells, and to research the etiology and transmission of disease. The ability to clone specific stem cells may also allow researchers to clone cells with genetic defects and analyze those cells with more precisions. Despite those potential benefits, Parliament has banned such cloning due to a myriad of social and ethical concerns. In May 2002, the Canadian Government introduced Bill C-13 on assisted human reproductive technologies. Bill C-13 deals with both the scientific and the clinical use of human reproductive materials, and it prohibits a number of other activities, including NRHC. Although the Supreme Court of Canada has never ruled on whether scientific experiments area form of expression, academic support exists for this notion. The authors go through the legal analysis that would be required to find that scientific experiments are expression, focusing in part on whether NRHC could be considered violent and thus fall outside the protection of section 2(b). The latter question is complicated by the ongoing policy debate over whether an "embryonic cell" is property of human life. The authors then consider whether a ban on NRHC could be justified under section 1 of the Charter. They conclude that both the breadth of the legislative purpose and the proportionality of the measure are problematic. Proportionality is a specific concern because the ban could be viewed as an outright denial of scientific freedom of expression. Although consistent with current jurisprudence on freedom of expression, this paper runs against the flow of government policy in the areas of regulation and prohibition of non-reproductive human cloning. As there has been no Charter litigation to date on whether scientific research is a form of expression, the authors introduce a new way of looking at the legality of the regulation of new reproductive technologies.     

The problems and possibilities in regulating technological frontiers: the politics of the new anxiety?

The revolution in science, biotechnology and medicine of the past 30 years demands a revisitation of old institutional forms and responses, including those of law itself. Scientific citizenship requires that law develop a moral vision and vocabulary so that we shape the moral dimensions of the emergent bioeconomy. Chief among those in the field of biotechnology are technologies of human reproductive cloning, therapeutic cloning and stem cell research using human embryos. Where there are deep pluralist divisions is in relation to therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Regulatory flexibility may be opportune in delimiting the extent to which government need stray into this realm of "moral politics". As Brownsword has written, an important developmental vector is what has become known in administrative and public law literature as the concept of "smart regulation". This concept is examined and an attempt to apply it to these fields is made. The enlarged nature of human action -- enlarged in magnitude, reach and novelty -- raises moral issues beyond interpersonal ethics and requires reflection; responsibility is centre stage and calls for lengthened foresight -- what has been called a "scientific futurology". This is also examined.     

Regulating developments in embryonic stem cell research in Africa: a third person's perspective

Among the many advances in modern biotechnology, embryonic stem (ES) cell research has raised perhaps the most intense debate over the ethical, legal and policy issues involved. This debate has centred inter alia on the lives and well-being of the donors or participants in clinical trials, the presumed lives of embryos, the possibility of reproductive cloning, and government funding, among others. These ethical, legal and policy issues tend to overlap and cut across all strata of society, with opponents of the research calling for prohibition and proponents calling for promotion. One important question is whether African countries should regulate to limit or promote developments in ES cell research. This article argues that, in view of the dynamism of modern biotechnology, African countries should regulate in such a way as to maximise the benefits while minimising the disadvantages associated with the research.     

克隆人立法的宪法规制

克隆羊"多莉"诞生以来,克隆技术迅猛发展,克隆人问题的现实性日益彰显。我国秉持"禁止生殖性克隆、支持治疗性克隆"的指导思想,出台了相关规章禁止克隆人。然而,目前我国克隆人的相关立法有违背宪法上的法律保留原则和比例原则之嫌,存在着合宪性问题。建议全国人大根据法律保留和比例原则制定专门的《克隆技术管理法》,明确界定克隆人的相关概念,禁止任何人从事生殖性克隆,并明确规定监管机关的监管职责以及违法应当承担的法律责任,同时将生殖性克隆入罪、明确立法的"落日条款",以消解当前克隆人立法的合宪性问题,实现克隆人立法的宪法规制。     

The status of human cloning in the international setting]

The General Assembly of the United Nations submitted a Declaration on Human Cloning in March 2005. The text of such Declaration was the result of a difficult and long process, taking more than three years. Being a Declaration instead of a Resolution, it has not legal capability in inforcing United Nations members to act according to its recommendations. This article begins with an explanation of several terms referred to cloning. Different countries' legislation on cloning is analyzed. Positions of the same countries at the Convention of the United Nations are as well analyzed. Comparing both countries' views shows that national legislation on cloning is independent and orientated by some countries' particular interests and biological and ethical views on these issues. Future developments on human cloning and its applications will be shared among all countries, both the ones currently allowing and supporting "therapeutic" cloning and the ones now banning it. In such case, it would be important to reach agreements on these issues at an international level. The article discusses possible legislative developments and offers some proposals to reach such agreements.     

德国刑事诉讼法中的证据使用禁止

本文从批判性的视角概述了德国刑事诉讼法中关于证据采纳或者说是关于证据禁止的问题。证据禁止区分为非自主性证据使用禁止和自主性证据使用禁止。非自主性证据使用禁止可能是由于公诉中初步侦查时的取证错误导致的。就是否适用非自主性证据使用禁止这一问题，德国司法官会从几个方面加以考虑，例如，犯罪的严重性或者是取证错误的严重性。自主性证据使用禁止是由于侵犯了个人隐私。例如，私人日记不能作为证据使用。     

人类克隆技术的专利保护

随着生物技术特别是克隆技术的发展,人类克隆技术是否受到专利法的保护成为备受人们关注的问题。由于人 类克隆技术涉及到人类伦理道德和公序良俗等问题,现在许多国家都把此类技术排除在专利保护之外。但是,人 类克隆技术不等于克隆人的技术,克隆也不等同于生殖性克隆,不加区分地禁止人类克隆技术是不利于克隆技术 发展的。况且,本质上来说反对克隆人不是专利法的任务。我们应该尽快制定关于禁止生殖性克隆的法律,而对 于其他的人类克隆技术则可以毫无阻碍地获得专利保护,这样既可以保护社会和公众的利益,又可以推动克隆技 术的更快发展。     

Canada's Assisted Human Reproductive Act: is it scientific censorship, or a reasoned approach to the regulation of rapidly emerging reproductive technologies?

After more than a decade of study, discussion and debate, the Canadian House of Commons and Senate have approved the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Building on the earlier Bill C-47, which died on the order paper in 1997, the Act bans human cloning for reproductive or therapeutic purposes, payment for surrogacy arrangements, and trading in human reproductive materials or their use without informed consent. In addition, the Act significantly restricts research using human reproductive materials. This article compares the Act to legislative regimes in other nations with advanced human reproductive science. It concludes that while the Act has many laudable goals, it is flawed in that it tries to cover too much legislative ground. As a result it unreasonable impairs the ability of Canadian scientists to compete in areas such as stem cell research, and area that is expected to yield significant new approaches to treating human disease.     

Washington v. Glucksberg was tragically wrong

Properly focused, there were two questions before the Supreme Court in Washington v. Glucksberg. First, in light of all of the other non-textual rights protected by the Supreme Court under the "liberty" of the Due Process Clause, is the right to assisted death a fundamental right? Second, if so, is the prohibition of assisted death necessary to achieve a compelling interest? Presented in this way, it is clear that the Court erred in Washington v. Glucksberg. The right of a terminally ill person to end his or her life is an essential aspect of autonomy, comparable to aspects of autonomy that the Court has protected in decisions concerning family autonomy, reproductive autonomy, and autonomy to engage in sexual activity. Moreover, the government's general interest in protecting life and preventing suicide has far less force when applied to a terminally ill patient. The tragedy of Washington v. Glucksberg is that every day across the country, terminally ill patients are being forced to suffer longer and being denied an essential aspect of their autonomy and personhood.     

劳动权的平等保护及禁止就业歧视的法律思考

目前我国社会就业歧视现象愈演愈烈,劳动权作为公民的基本权利之一,其内在包含的就业平等权要求禁止就业歧视,因此禁止就业歧视是劳动权的题中之义。本文将以劳动权的平等保护为出发点,界定就业歧视的概念和主要表现形式,论述禁止就业歧视的必要性。我国禁止就业歧视的相关立法存在不足,应从立法、执法、司法三方面完善禁止就业歧视、维护劳动者的就业平等权的法律保障。     

Embryonal genetic diagnosis and reproductive freedom in assisted procreation]

This article analyses the repercussions that the Preimplantational Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) has in the bioethical as well as legal fields in relation with the so-called "reproductive freedom" of the couple. Besides analysing the legal situation of this technique in Spain as well as other surrounding States, the article studies the problems associated with some scenarios of PGD, such as the use in the selection of sex, for therapeutic purposes for third parties, in relation with diseases of a possible late onset, multifactorial or of a variable phenotype expression and for the selection of embryos affected by a disease or disability. All are based on real clinical cases.     

The inadequacies of absolute prohibition of reproductive cloning

This study reviews debates on human cloning and its benefits, considers international and domestic laws, and argues that the choice of reproductive means is a human right. In exercise of this right, a balanced approach should be adopted, in order to benefit human society while protecting human dignity adequately. The immaturity of cloning techniques indicates that at the present time human reproductive cloning is too risky. Thus a temporary ban on such cloning is appropriate, but the ban on relevant scientific research and animal experimentation is inappropriate as it denies the spirit of freedom of scientific inquiry, and hinders making the benefits of scientific advancement available to human society as a whole.     

Human rights dynamics of abortion law reform

The legal approach to abortion is evolving from criminal prohibition towards accommodation as a life-preserving and health-preserving option, particularly in light of data on maternal mortality and morbidity. Modern momentum for liberalization comes from international adoption of the concept of reproductive health, and wider recognition that the resort to safe and dignified healthcare is a major human right. Respect for women's reproductive self-determination legitimizes abortion as a choice when family planning services have failed, been inaccessible, or been denied by rape. Recognition of women's rights of equal citizenship with men requires that their choices for self-determination be legally respected, not criminalized.     

The sex industry,human trafficking and the global prohibition regime: a cautionary tale from Greece

Using the concept of global prohibition regimes as an analytical point of departure, this article interrogates the development and results of the agitation campaign that relayed the new global prohibition regime against trafficking for sexual exploitation in Greece after 1995. In line with the international trend towards the issue of trafficking in the 1990s, the Greek campaign has been successful in shaping perceptions of the change in the Greek sex industry on the basis of an equation of prostitution, trafficking and transnational organized crime, and it also successfully capitalized on transnational supports to induce changes in legislation and public policy. However, a critical examination of the Greek situation suggests that there is a considerable discrepancy between the above conceptualisation and the knowledge of the issue emerging from the activities of criminal justice agencies. The examination of the general conditions of economic exploitation and social marginalization of migrants in Greece in the 1990s and after reveals significant homologies between the social organization of the sex industry and other sectors of the economy that have depended on migrant labour. This result underscores the nature of the idea of organized crime as an ideological construct acting as a diversion from more substantive paths of inquiry into the structures of national economy that bear upon the exploitation of sexual labour.

Temporal Limits on the Legislative Mandate: Entrenchment and Retroactivity

According to the general wisdom, legislatures lack both the power to "entrench" their enactments against alteration by their successors and the power to "retroactively" undo the efforts of their predecessors. The author argues that, rather than being in conflict, these principles share a common theme. Legislatures operate as agents of the people under constitutionally defined mandates that are limited in time as well as scope. Actions that transcend—either forward or backward in time—the temporal delegation of authority conferred by periodic elections do not bind the electorate. In the first half of the article the author suggests that an understanding of the rationale behind the entrenchment prohibition can help shed light on a diverse group of issues including congressional power to prescribe internal rules of operation, constitutional amendment procedures, and legislative impairment of contracts. In the second half of the article the author takes issue with the traditional objection to retroactivity grounded on vested rights and unfulfilled expectations. In its place he proposes a theory of retroactivity embodied in republican principles concerning the temporal relationship between the people and their legislative agents.