As you may recall, one of Obama's first moves was to be president-after promise to close Guantanamo, remove the veto provision of federal public funds (the National Institutes of Health, NIH, then) to research on human embryonic stem cells (hES) that had been laid by his predecessor George Bush. That was March 6, 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7929690.stm) and put an end to a veto that had lasted more than eight years, just from that in August 9, 2001 that George Bush had forbidden federal funds-tax dollars of Americans ", as he had placed the former president, went to fund research considered unethical (research on human embryonic stem cells is still possible with private funds in U.S. or on cell lines already exist).
terminating, or should we say, seemed to put an end to the veto?
In fact, the story is not over, because Monday, August 23, 2010 Federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth has opened a new chapter, issuing a verdict that the funding for research on hES violates a federal law that prevents the use of tax money (the same argument used by Bush and then) to conduct experiments that destroy human embryos (http : / / www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/23/AR2010082303448.html?wpisrc=nl_politics). In its decision 15 pages long (which can be read entirely here: https: / / ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov) Judge Lamberth in his opinion cites a law "unambiguous" (unambiguous) enacted by Congress in 1996, and called Amenda Dickey-Wicker, that it is forbidden to bestow federal funds to fund research that will be "destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death embryos."
As you probably already guessed, is not it evident that the implication of this amendment has the veto to research on hES. In fact, as concluded in 1999, the lawyer Harriet S. Rabb, it can be argued that the NIH support research on hES does not violate the amendment, if the funds are used only for experiments on cell lines derived from embryos, and not specifically to create embryos for research. The line of thought
Advocate Rabb is similar to those used in arguments bioetica per cui è lecito (inteso come eticamente giustificabile) fare ricerca sugli embrioni umani sovrannumerari da pratiche di fecondazione assistita, per esempio (perché, detto un po' semplicemente, tali embrioni sarebbero comunque destinati a rimanere in un congelatore senza la possibilità di svilupparsi in un feto), mentre non è lecito creare appositamente embrioni destinati solo alla ricerca scientifica, andando a distruggere quindi consapevolmente la loro potenzialità.
Tale linea di pensiero può essere assimilata anche a quegli argomenti usati da parte di esponenti cristiano protestanti (come la Chiesa valdese in Italia, per fare un esempio vicino a noi), secondo cui è lecito fare ricerca su linee cellulari of existing hES, because evil (the destruction of the embryo) has already been done, and recurrence of evil (to do research on hES) must be balanced against the benefits to human health which could be obtained from the research on hES.
the contrary, the Catholic view is more extreme with regard to the recurrence of evil, and there is no assessment of the benefits that can compensate for such action.
So, in short, the arguments for and against the research on hES vary but always include the same ones that turn and turn over. Judge Lamberth was not particularly original, and its decision can be challenged with their own arguments similar to those used by Rabb in 1999, and with arguments that take into account the risks or benefits, or more.
But the point is another: we want to really think this is still the level of debate on bioethics in hES? We are not yet tired of sharpening always the same, and more and more worn, weapons?
Apparently, the sad answer is no, we did not (or rather, who has, as Judge Lamberth did not) still tired. Expect to see then the next, inevitable chapter in history. For now, the NIH had no immediate comment on the ruling.
(A little side note: if we were in Italy, I suspect that there is some 'bad faith to take Decisions of this kind ever in August-the veto Bush in August 2001, the decision of Judge Lamberth in August 2010 - when everyone is on holiday and the decision more easily pass unnoticed.
But in the U.S. work in August, and I who are nasty! or not?
0 comments:
Post a Comment