The moral status of the embryo post-Dolly

Stanton, Catherine; Harris, John

doi:10.1136/jme.2004.008086

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The problem this raises, of ‘what is an embryo’—biologically, morally and ontologically—recalls discussions that took place over somatic cell nuclear transfer [ 37 , 38 ] and embryo splitting [ 39 ], as well as over human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research and the associated concerns regarding various levels of potency that embryos, blastocysts and isolated cells might possess. Common to these discussions was that they sought to determine what makes an embryo biologically , in order to be able to demarcate what might be special about it morally .…”

Section: What Is An Embryo?mentioning

confidence: 99%

How and Why to Replace the 14-Day Rule

Chan

2018

Curr Stem Cell Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of ReviewThe ‘14-day rule’, which limits research on human embryos to the first 14 days after fertilisation, has long been a pillar of regulation in this contested area. Recently, advances in developmental biology have led to calls to rethink the rule and its application. In this paper, I address the question of whether the 14-day rule should be replaced and, if so, how.Recent FindingsThe two lines of research that have prompted this question are new techniques enabling culture of embryos at least up to 14 days and patterning experiments with pluripotent cells suggesting that they might form embryo-like structures. I consider each of these in relation to the foundations and function of the rule to examine whether they warrant change.SummaryI argue that the 14-day rule for embryo research should be open to change, but that this possibility must be addressed through early and thorough discussion involving a wide range of publics and other stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: What Is An Embryo?mentioning

confidence: 99%

How and Why to Replace the 14-Day Rule

Chan

2018

Curr Stem Cell Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The point is that, whereas bioethical reasoning had long dismissed the validity of the potentiality argument, science still seemed to provide, until a few years ago, a set of reasonable boundaries to treat cell potency as if it were a natural given. But the birth and life of Dolly, along with the flurry of research on genome reprogramming, have since demonstrated how fragile and ultimately inadequate the concept of potency is to inspire public policy (Stanton and Harris, 2005). As Hans Scho ¨ler from the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine and Giuseppe Testa from the European Institute of Oncology pointed out, potency without context means nothing.…”

Section: Potentiality and Reprogrammingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breakdown of the Potentiality Principle and Its Impact on Global Stem Cell Research

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Totipotency, defined as the ability of a single cell to generate an entire individual, has traditionally served as a cornerstone to frame the moral relevance of nascent human life. This "potentiality principle" has served as an ethical reference point for shaping legal regulations for stem cell research in most Western countries. Based on heterogeneous ethical, religious, and political views, different countries cope with recent advances in mammalian cloning and reprogramming in a remarkably diverse manner. This and related issues were key topics at a recent meeting held in Berlin, Germany, on ethical aspects of stem cell research in Europe. An emerging view from this event is that international heterogeneity in stem cell politics and legislation must be overcome in order to develop this field toward biomedical application.

show abstract

“…[2003] UKHL 13, para 26, see also(21,22) 22 [2003] UKHL 13, paras 43-46 23. [2003] UKHL 13, Lord Bingham, para 18.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Human embryo cloning prohibited in Hong Kong

Liu

2005

J Assist Reprod Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the birth of Dolly (the cloned sheep) in 1997, debates have arisen on the ethical and legal questions of cloning-for-biomedical-research (more commonly termed "therapeutic cloning") and of reproductive cloning using human gametes. Hong Kong enacted the Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance (Cap 561) in 2000. Section 15(1)(e) of this Ordinance prohibits the "replacing of the nucleus of a cell of an embryo with a nucleus taken from any other cell," i.e., nucleus substitution. Section 15(1)(f) prohibits the cloning of any embryo. The scope of the latter, therefore, is arguably the widest, prohibiting all cloning techniques such as cell nucleus replacement, embryo splitting, parthenogenesis, and cloning using stem cell lines. Although the Human Reproductive Technology Ordinance is not yet fully operative, this article examines how these prohibitions may adversely impact on basic research and the vision of the Hong Kong scientific community. It concludes that in light of recent scientific developments, it is time to review if the law offers a coherent set of policies in this area.

show abstract

The moral status of the embryo post-Dolly

Cited by 8 publications

References 10 publications

How and Why to Replace the 14-Day Rule

How and Why to Replace the 14-Day Rule

Breakdown of the Potentiality Principle and Its Impact on Global Stem Cell Research

Human embryo cloning prohibited in Hong Kong

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About