Abstract
Purpose: This study provides an overview of the legal environment and assisted reproductive technology (ART) practitioner attitudes toward human reproductive cloning.
Methods: A review of the law and a survey of ART practitioners and a comparison group of attorneys were undertaken.
Results: Human reproductive cloning has been prohibited in many countries, and may soon be prohibited in others. However, many ART practitioners support its use for limited indications.
Conclusions: ART practitioners were surveyed concerning their views on human reproductive cloning and related techniques. A few had considered using or had used embryo splitting or germ cell nuclear transfer. Although they expressed some concerns about the present risk of reproductive cloning, most indicated that it did not violate their religious beliefs. More than three-quarters of ART practitioners responding indicated that they would be willing to provide human reproductive cloning in indicated cases if it were legally permissible to do so. A significant percentage of the group also indicated that they currently have the ability to provide this service.
Keywords: embryo splitting, germ cell nuclear transfer, legal issues, practitioner attitudes, reproductive cloning
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (193.0 KB).
REFERENCES
- 1.Cloning human beings: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; 1997. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.1998 Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, U.N. GAOR Res. 68, 29th Sess., U.N. Doc. 29 C/21 (1997)
- 3.Council of Europe, Draft Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings, 34 I.L.M. 1515 (1997)
- 4.Jones HW, Cohen J, Out HJ. IFFS Surveillance 98. Fertil Steril. 1999;71:28s–29s. [Google Scholar]
- 5.The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Human somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning) Fertil Steril. 2000;74:873–876. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.ASRM Ethics Committee Statement adopted by ASRM Board of Directors Dec 8, 1995
- 7.Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§s 333.16274 and 750.430a (West 2000); La. Rev. Stat. §§s 1299.36-1299.36.6 (West 2000); R.I. Gen. Laws §§s 23-16.4-1 to 23-16.4-4 (West 2000); Cal. Health & Safety Code §§s 24185-24189 (West 2000); Cal. Bus & Prof Code §§s 2260.5, 16105 and 16004 (West 2000)
- 8.Fla. Stat. Ann. § 390.0111(6) (West 2000); La. Stat. Ann. 9:121 et seq.(West 2000); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, § 1593 (West 2000); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 112, § 12J (West 2000); Mich. Comp. Laws. Ann. § 333.2685 et seq.(West 2000); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 145.421 (West 2000); N.D. Cent. Code § 14-02.2-01 (1991); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 168-B:15 (West 2000); 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3216 (West 2000); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-54-1 (West 2000)
- 9.Johnson MH, Kubiak JZ. Legal confusion over cloning risks: Throwing baby out with bathwater. Nature. 2000;407:559. doi: 10.1038/35036747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.S. 1602 and 5.1611, 105th Cong., 2d Sess (1998)
- 11.S. 1599 and S. 1601, 105th Cong., 2d Sess (1998)