05 bioethics(1)

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/05-bioethics1 1/22

DEFENDING LIFE 2013BIOETHICS & BIOTECHNOLOGIES

Excerpt fom

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S

Americans United for Life, Defending Life 2013

BIOETHICS & BIOTECHNOLOGIES

With each passing year, we face new and increasinglycomplex challenges to the sanctity of human life. Medical research and new biotechnologies areadvancing far faster than our society’s ethical and

legal constraints ensuring their moral use. WhenAldous Huxley wrote Brave New World in 1932,human cloning was merely science ction. oday,human cloning is becoming a reality.

We have seen extraordinary advances in medicalresearch over the past 20 years. Te once languishingarea of stem-cell research is now commonplace. Everyday, new treatments developed from adult stem cellsare being used to treat real people suffering from onceincurable diseases and serious injuries. Others, while

not cured, have made such progress that their illnessesor injuries no longer dominate their everyday lives,and they engage in life in ways they never thought possible.

Scientists have been able to help patients sufferingfrom over 70 different diseases and injuries—including brain cancer, leukemia, lymphoma,Crohn’s disease, lupus, heart damage, Parkinson’sdisease, sickle cell anemia, and end-stage bladderdisease—using adult stem cells. Conversely, morally

problematic embryonic stem-cell research has yieldedno cures or treatments.

Despite the promising advances in adult stem-cellresearch, many scientists and politicians continue toseek unfettered freedom (and your tax dollars) forimmoral uses of biotechnology in the hope of miraclecures. If we do not act with greater urgency, the abuseof nascent human life will become more entrenched

and far more difficult to regulate. Powerful ethicand legal limits are needed to preserve and prothe sanctity of all human life.

AUL has focused on providing accurate and update information on legal advances in biotechnolincluding human cloning, destructive embresearch (DER), and ethical alternatives to DERsuch as adult stem cells, induced pluripotent scells, and cord blood, as found in this section.

Moreover, we hope to spark a thoughtful discusand debate on the regulation of assisted reproductechnologies (AR ), including in vitro fertilizati(IVF). Women undergoing IVF should be gi

information regarding the practical limitations the number of embryos that may be created implanted during an IVF treatment cycle. Embryadoption should be given as an option to pareof IVF-created embryos, and such adoption shobe recognized under state law. We must provimeaningful oversight and regulation of IVF other reproductive technologies, as the so-ca“le over” embryos in IVF clinics around the natare at the heart of ongoing debates over DER human cloning.

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S


Continuing advances in biomedical science andtechnology are raising challenging and profoundethical questions—for individuals and families, forscientists and healthcare professionals, and for thebroader society. Many important human values areimplicated, among them health, the relief of suffering,respect for life and for the human person, humanfreedom, and human dignity. Te ourishing eldof modern bioethics arose to explore these issues,and various bodies—including the U.S. Congress,state legislatures, local research review boards,academic bioethics institutes, and several national

commissions—continue to wrestle with them.Te term “bioethics” commonly refers to the moralquestions and implications raised by biologicaldiscoveries and biomedical advances, and particularlythose questions raised by experimentation on livinghuman beings. As such, the eld covers a variety ofscientic and medical areas, including destructiveembryo research, cloning, assisted reproduction, andgenetic testing—areas lacking signicant protectiveregulation under either federal or state law.

ISSUES

Destructive Embryo Research (DER)

Obtaining embryonic stem cells from an embryorequires the destruction of that living human being.In this process, a days-old embryo that has grown toseveral hundred-cells is broken apart, and the cellsfrom the embryo’s inner mass are removed.1 Tese

unspecialized cells are then grown in the laboratoryand used for research.

More than a decade after the first isolation ofembryonic stem cells, there is not a single diseasethat these cells have been used to cure, regardlessof whether the cells obtained from embryos arecreated through sperm and egg or through cloning.

Scientists have been conducting research on moembryonic stem cells for 30 years and are still unto cure mice.2 Research on humans that necessitadestroying human embryos would be repugnant eif it led to cures, but such research on humans is more offensive given the fact that this researchrarely (and never consistently) worked in animals

here are successful, ethical alternatives to ushuman embryos as a source of stem cells for resand therapeutic purposes. One important souris umbilical cord blood—a very rich source of

cells. Another is adult stem cells from various orResearchers have long known, for example, that bmarrow can form into blood cells. We now know bone-marrow cells can form into fat, cartilage, bone tissue. A third promising source is neural scells. Tese stem cells have been successfully isoand cultured from living human neural tissue even from adult cadavers. Moreover, research bthroughs since 2007 are opening the door for reprogramming of adult stem cells into the embrystem-cell state—without the use or destruction

human embryos.Scientic research utilizing adult stem cells has yi peer-reviewed, published evidence for treatmencures for over 70 conditions or diseases. Tus, future of human cures is not in destroying sohumans to treat others. It is in ethical treatments ttreat all human life with dignity and respect. How proponents of embryonic stem-cell research have posely created a false impression that embryonic cells have a proven therapeutic use, when they

in reality, never helped a single human patient.In addition to the facts that 1) obtaining embryostem cells destroys the subject human embryo, 2) embryonic stem-cell research has never helphuman patient, such research is also immoral becthe only way to obtain the human eggs necesto create embryos is to exploit women. Wom

“The Brave New World” of BioethicsA SURVEY OF FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS Mailee R . Smith, Staff Counsel, Americans United for Life

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S


between the ages of 18 and 25 typically producethe healthiest and most scientically useful efficienteggs and are highly sought a er as egg “donors.” A woman normally only produces one or two eggs per reproductive cycle. o obtain enough eggs forresearch, a woman must take drugs that will causeher to super-ovulate, releasing 10-15 eggs at a time,

and undergo an invasive surgical procedure in orderto retrieve them. It is simply not possible to obtainenough eggs from willing women to adequately pursue this research or treat possible diseases thatmay come from any breakthroughs using embryonicstem cells. Moreover, egg harvesting carries risks;it requires preliminary hormone treatment that isaccompanied by an increased risk of certain cancersand complications in future pregnancies.3 Putting women’s health and fertility—and perhaps eventheir lives—at stake for their eggs is nothing shortof exploitation.Te U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the legalstatus of a human embryo outside of the mother’s womb. In August 2001, President George W. Bushannounced that federal funding would be allowedonly for research on then-existing embryonic stem-cell lines. Later, in March 2009, President BarackObama signed an Executive Order reversing that policy. President Obama’s decision to fund suchdestructive research—which runs counter tofederal law under the Dickey-Weber amendmentthat prohibits research that will harm an embryo— was immediately challenged in federal court.Unfortunately, a district and appellate court haveupheld the funding. Te U.S. Supreme Court hasbeen asked to review the case.

At this point, the best strategy is for states to institute protective measures. Currently, at least seven stateseither expressly or impliedly ban destructive embryoresearch on embryos created through in vitrofertilization (IVF) or by cloning, and at least 19states ban fetal experimentation to varying degrees.In addition to these direct bans on research, at leastsix states restrict funding or the use of state facilitiesor tax credits for destructive embryo research, andat least 29 states have passed legislation encouragingthe use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord bloodand/or the donation of umbilical cord blood.

AUL has dra ed several models to help states cineffective, unethical research, and to promote proethical research. Tese models include the “Destrtive Embryo Research Act,” banning destrucembryo research; a “Prohibition on Public Fundof Human Cloning and Destructive EmbrResearch Act”; an “Egg Donor Protection Act,” foc

on preventing the exploitation of women; an“Real Hope for Patients Act,” focused on promoand funding ethical research alternatives.

Human Cloning

One of the inherent problems in using embryostem cells in therapies is the problem of tr plantation. If a transplanted cell’s DNA is esomewhat different from the DNA of the perbeing treated, the body usually sees those cel

invaders and kills them off—much like what happ when whole-organ transplants are rejected becof the recipient’s immune system response. Withthe use of drugs to suppress the patient’s immsystem, transplanted tissue generally survives ofew hours or days.

THE DIFFERING JUSTIFICATIONS THAT ONE

CLONE IS DESTINED TO BE DESTROYED

FOR ITS STEM CELLS AND THE OTHER FOR

IMPLANTATION IN A WOMB DO NOT—ANDCANNOT—CHANGE THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC

FACT THAT THE CLONED HUMAN EMBRYOS

CREATED FOR THERAPEUTIC OR REPRO-

DUCTIVE PURPOSES ARE HUMAN BEINGS.

o overcome this inherent problem, scientists beg pursuing human cloning as a method for obtaingenetically-compatible cells for transplantatHuman cloning is the process through which

human egg is taken from a woman, the nucleuremoved, and then it is replaced with a nucleus fro patient’s body cell. Using electrical shock or “chebath,” the egg is tricked into believing it has bfertilized, and it begins to divide, thereby becomhuman embryo.

A general misconception exists that there are types of human cloning: “therapeutic” cloning

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S


“cloning-for-biomedical-research”) and “reproductive”cloning (or “cloning-to-produce-children”). However,in both situations, the clones are created from thesame procedure. hese designations are simplydescriptions of the two different rationales or purposes offered for the clones created from the same procedure, known medically as “somatic cell nuclear

transfer,” or human cloning.Both rationales are morally wrong because bothscientifically begin with the creation of a clonedhuman being at the embryonic stage of life. hediffering justifications that one clone is destinedto be destroyed for its stem cells and the other forimplantation in a womb do not—and cannot—change the basic scientic fact that the cloned humanembryos created for therapeutic or reproductive purposes are human beings. For this reason and

others, comprehensive bans on human cloning shouldbe enacted in the 50 states and by the U.S. Congress.

Currently, no federal law bans human cloning forany purpose, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet spoken on the subject. However, eight states banhuman cloning for any purpose, while ten states banonly cloning-to-produce-children.

AUL has dra ed a “Human Cloning Prohibition Act”to assist states seeking to ban human cloning for all

purposes. And as previously mentioned, we have alsodra ed a model bill prohibiting the public funding ofsuch unethical research and another preventing theexploitation of women providing human eggs.

Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART)

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is the fertilization of ahuman egg by a human sperm outside a woman’s body,in a laboratory. Te term “assisted reproductive tech-nology” (AR ) encompasses both IVF as well as

newer forms of AR . Despite the increasingly widespread use of these reproductive technologies,there is a lack of commonsense regulation of these procedures at both the federal and state levels. Tislack of regulation has resulted in the storage ofmore than an estimated 600,000 cryopreserved(frozen) human embryos in laboratories across theUnited States.

In 2004, the President’s Council on Bioethics issureport, Reproduction & Responsibility, outlining lack of regulation of AR . As the Council’s rep points out, “[t]here is only one federal statute aims at the regulation of assisted reproduction: ‘Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certication A1992’ (sometimes called the ‘Wyden Act’),” and it

serves two purposes: 1) providing consumers information about the effectiveness of AR serviand 2) providing states with a model certica process for embryo laboratories.”4 Additionally, t“Clinic Laboratory Improvement Amendments1988” (CLIA) govern quality assurance and conin clinical laboratories including those involveAR , and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control aPrevention (CDC) has announced a new nationAR Surveillance System. hese regulations pain comparison to those in place in Great BritGermany, Sweden, Switzerland, and many oEuropean nations, where, for example, the numbeembryos created and/or transferred per reproductcycle is limited by law.

Te Council’s March 2004 report further conrmethat AR is little regulated by the states. In fact,the report noted, “[t]he vast majority of state statudirectly concerned with assisted reproduction…concerned mostly with the question of access to services.”5 For example, numerous states only addinsurance coverage of AR .

Responsible state and federal regulation is necesfor several reasons:

• Assisted reproductive technologies, primaIVF, are the “gateway” to all future genetic neering. Te current lack of regulation promotthe creation and destruction of excess embrand, without an adequate response, promoconditions conducive for human cloning

other immoral experimentation on human lifeits earliest forms.

• Te health of women undergoing IVF, who ao en injected with hormones that may caucancer and other diseases, may be compromand subsequently-born children may subirth defects or other complications from procedures.6

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S


Tere are increasing numbers of multiple births (withassociated health and safety concerns), as well as theuse of so-called selective reductions (i.e., abortions)of unborn children.7

AUL has drafted model legislation, entitled the“Assisted Reproductive echnology Disclosure andRisk Reduction Act,” aimed at ensuring trulyinformed consent by couples undergoing AR processes as well as regulating the number of embryosthat can be created and transferred in a single repro-ductive cycle.

Embryo Adoption

he lack of AR regulation has left hundreds ofthousands of embryos frozen in time. But throughembryo adoption, couples can adopt so-called

“leftover” embryos from other couples who havealready undergone IVF. Tis process represents anemerging alternative to the traditional options le toIVF parents: indenite cryopreservation, donationto anonymous persons, or donation for research (andultimately, destruction).

Not only does embryo adoption allow parents tochoose an alternative other than destruction forresearch, but it also offers a more attractive optionthan donation. When the embryos are donated

to other couples, as opposed to adopted by them,the process is anonymous and the placement isusually determined by the fertility clinic’s physician.Receiving couples usually undergo only basic medicalscreening and psychological counseling.

When embryos are adopted, on the other hand, the process is typically much more open. Te adoptingfamily will likely have access to the child’s history,a potential match for future organ donation, andthe possibility of a relationship with the placing

family. Programs such as the Snowflake EmbryoAdoption Program require adopting couples toundergo extensive screening, such as ngerprinting,background checks, home studies, infant CPR, and parenting classes. Placing-families and adoptive-families prepare informational portfolios aboutthemselves—dossiers including everything from photographs to information regarding religiousbackgrounds. Like birth mothers, genetic parents use

this information to choose adoptive parents to band raise their embryos.

Currently, however, embryos are usually strandedsort of legal nowhere-land. Many courts are relucto classify embryos as property, but they also docharacterize them as human beings. Laws regarembryo donation and adoption are, at best, unsettTere are no federal laws which specically addthese issues, but at least 13 states provide varlevels of guidance for embryo donation andembryo adoption.

AUL has cra ed a model bill, entitled the “EmbAdoption Act,” for states interested in explicallowing for a court order of adoption for froembryos.

Genetic Testing and Discrimination

Genetic testing is currently available for 1,200 disand tests for hundreds of others are being developBut, as with other areas of biotechnological sucethical questions have arisen with the advancemof genetic testing. For example, can health insurcompanies use the results of genetic testinggranting or denying coverage? Or can emploscreen the genetic information of potential employbefore making hiring or promotion decisions?

Denying health insurance coverage on the bof genetic disease is not new. In the 1970s, sinsurance companies denied coverage or chahigher premiums to African Americans who carthe sickle cell anemia gene. More recently, ychildren were denied health insurance becathey carried a recessive genetic disease. In anexample, the health insurance coverage of a yboy with Fragile X Syndrome (an inherited fof mental retardation) was dropped; the compa

claimed the syndrome was a pre-existing condiOn the employment front, workers for BurlingNorthern Santa Fe Railroad were tested for gen predisposition to carpal tunnel syndrome.

In 2008, Congress took an initial step toward proting patients against such discrimination by pasthe “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination A(GINA).9 GINA prohibits employers and hea

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S


insurers from discriminating against persons on thebasis of their genetic information.

Tis is only an initial step. GINA only protects againstdiscrimination by employers and health insurers—itdoes not prohibit discrimination by life, disability, orlong-term care insurers. Te issue of coverage remainsalive even under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA” or

“Obamacare”), as GINA is limited to only certaininsurers and it remains to be seen how Obamacare isimplemented in the states. Further, no current federallaw or U.S. Supreme Court precedent addresses theissue of prenatal testing and the proper use of theresults of genetic testing performed on the unborn.Terefore, it is up to the states to ensure that theircitizens are not discriminated against by health, life,disability, and long-term care insurers.

Some states already address prenatal testingone way or another—either by affirming life oencouraging abortion (whether intentionally not). While most states and the District of Columbencourage life by prohibiting discriminatby insurance companies, some states effectiencourage the abortion of children with birth def

through the use of prenatal testing. For examthe California Department of Health maintaia “Prenatal Screening Branch” that is “focuseddetecting birth defects during pregnancy” identifying “individuals who are at increased riscarrying a fetus” with a birth defect.10

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S


Key Terms

ADULT STEM CELLS are semi-specialized cells that create the end-stage cells that do the work of the body. Present

throughout life, they continually work to replace dying end-stage cells. There are no ethical dilemmas associated with

using these cells as there are with embryonic stem cells. Sometimes referred to as multipotent stem cells, more than

70 different diseases or conditions have been treated or cured with these cells.

CLONING is the creation, by whatever technique, of an entity genetically identical to another entity already in existence.Through cloning, the new entity has only one genetic parent, not two as in normal reproduction.

CLONING-FOR-BIOMEDICAL-RESEARCH is the creation through cloning of a new human being at the embryonic

stage of life genetically identical to a single parent, with the intention of harvesting the clone’s stem cells for

experimentation, thereby resulting in the destruction of the cloned human being.

CLONING-TO-PRODUCE-CHILDREN is the creation through cloning of a new human being at the embryonic stage of

life genetically identical to a single parent, with the intention that the cloned human being will be implanted in a womb

and born.

CORD BLOOD STEM CELL is an adult stem cell found in the umbilical cord blood of newborn infants. Umbilical cords,which are routinely discarded, were discovered to have an unusually high concentration of adult stem cells which are

very easy to obtain and are capable of treating a host of diseases. In 2005, Congress passed legislation creating a

national umbilical cord blood bank similar to the national bone marrow system.

EMBRYO is an entity that, through whatever means (normal reproduction, cloning, or other method), has a full

complement of DNA and, with the proper environment and nutrition and unless otherwise interrupted, will develop

along the natural course of progression for that species into further stages of development until death.

EMBRYONIC STEM CELL is an early-stage stem cell obtained by destroying an embryo. Embryonic stem cells can

become virtually any type of cell in the body, but only if properly directed in their development. This naturally happens

in the organized human embryo, but is something that scientists have yet to learn how to control. The primary ethical

issues associated with using these cells is that they currently require the destruction of a living human embryo, and

that use of such cells in medical research constitutes unethical experimentation when there has not been adequate

research using animals. Sometimes referred to as “pluripotent stem cells,” there is not a single disease that

physicians can treat with these cells.

GENETIC DISCRIMINATION IS DISCRIMINATION which “occurs if people are treated unfairly because of differences in

their DNA that increase their chances of getting a certain disease. For example, a health insurer might refuse to give

coverage to a woman who has a DNA difference that raises her odds of getting breast cancer. Employers also could use

DNA information to decide whether to hire or re workers.” 11

GENETIC TESTING IS TESTING “developed to nd DNA differences that affect our health.” 12 In other words, these are

tests which “look for alterations in a person’s genes or changes in the level or structure of key proteins coded for by

specic genes.” 13 It is believed that healthcare providers will be able to utilize “information about each person’s DNA

to develop more individualized ways of detecting, treating, and preventing disease.” 14

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S


SOMATIC CELL NUCLEAR TRANSFER (SCNT) is another term for cloning. It is the process in which the nucleus (and,

therefore, the original DNA) is removed from an egg and discarded, the nucleus of a somatic (or body) cell containing

the genetic material of another entity is transplanted into the egg, and an electric shock or chemical solution is used

to trick the egg into believing it has been fertilized. The altered egg, containing another entity’s DNA, begins dividing

as does every other embryo.

ZYGOTE is a one-cell embryo. From this one cell will arise every cell in the body. Sometimes inaccurately referred to

as a “fertilized egg” or “totipotent cell.”

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S


Myth: You cannot compare a clump of cells smaller than the tip of pencil to an existing human being who is suffering adie without this research.

Fact : It is not your size or location that gives you value and dignity; rather it is your status as a memthe human race. Every human being, whether as small as the tip of a pencil or as large as a sumo wredeserves the protections accorded to all other human beings. If we decide that some members of thehuman race should not receive those protections, then we are all at risk if the rich, powerful, or a simmajority decides some of us are no longer worthy of life.

Myth: Adult stem cells are not as capable as embryonic stem cells.

Fact : While it is generally agreed that embryonic stem cells are more exible in becoming differenttissue types than adult stem cells, the idea that adult cells are not as capable as embryonic cells for utreatments is pure speculation. Currently, adult cells are much more capable of treating human beingsthan embryonic cells, which have yet to cure a single disease.

Myth: Promoting embryo adoption will limit the availability of embryos for research and will, therefore, prevent us omdisco ering important cures for debilitating diseases.

Fact: Te vast majority of embryos in storage are reserved for the genetic parents’ possible future useif they decide to give birth to another child). Encouraging embryo adoption will simply lessen the num

of embryos that remain indenitely suspended in frozen storage, and further allow loving families wfertility problems to bear and raise children.

Myth: Now that the federal go ernment has passed GINA, patients are fully protected.

Fact : GINA does not cover everyone. For example, GINA does not cover members of the military. Inaddition, GINA only applies to employers and health insurers. It does not prohibit discrimination bylife, disability, or long-term care insurers. Furthermore, GINA is only a minimum standard of protectiothat must be met in all states. States are free to pass laws providing more restrictions on the use of ge

information by insurers and others. Myth: Americans who possess certain genetic traits are already protected under the “Americans with Disabilities Act” (A

Fact : While it is true that the ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against disabled person who are capable of performing their duties with reasonable accommodation, and the Equal EmploymOpportunities Commission (EEOC) has stated that healthy persons with genetic predispositions to adisease fall within the scope of the ADA, this carries no weight with insurance companies, who are held accountable to the EEOC in their decisions of who and who not to insure. Tus, GINA and statelaws are necessary to protect individuals from such discrimination on the part of insurance compani

Myth: My state adequately protects me against genetic discrimination.

Fact : While the majority of states and the District of Columbia prohibit discrimination in healthinsurance policies based upon genetic testing, the extent of the protection differs. For example, somestates specically prohibit health insurers from requiring testing, while others allow health insurers tconsider the results of tests only if the patients voluntarily submit favorable results. On the other hand,some states actually encourage genetic testing or allow discrimination in certain types of health insu policies. Tus, states are encouraged to enact further restrictions limiting the use of genetic informatioall insurance companies.

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S


ENDNOTES

1. M.J. Schlambott et. al., Derivation of pluripotent stem cells from cultured human primordial germ cells , Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. USA

95:23, 13726-731 (1998).

2. See M.J. Evans & M.H. Kaufman, Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos , Nature 292, 154–56 (1981).

3. See , e.g. , W.J. Smith, Lessons From the Cloning Debate: The Need for a Secular Approach , in Human Dignity in the Biotech Century

194-96 (C.W. Colson & N.M. de S. Cameron, eds. 2004) (explaining that it is not physiologically possible to obtain enough eggs to

treat disease through stem cell research and human cloning).

4. President’s Council on Bioethics, Reproduction & Responsibility (Mar. 2004).

5. Id . at 51.

6. See, e.g ., The President’s Council on Bioethics, Reproduction & Responsibility: The Regulation of New Biotechnologies 37-43 (2004).

7. See, e.g., id. at 41, 43.

8. Genetic & Public Policy Center of Johns Hopkins University, Genetic Privacy & Discrimination (updated Mar. 2009), available at http://

www.dnapolicy.org/policy.privacy.php (last visited Aug. 8, 2012).

9. Pub. L. 110-233, 122 Stat. 881 (enacted 2008).

10. See California Department of Public Health, Welcome to the California Prenatal Screening Program (PNS) (2010), available at http://

www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/pns/pages/default.aspx (last visited Dec. 3, 2012).

11. National Human Genome Research Institute, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (updated Feb. 18, 2012), available a

http://www.genome.gov/10002328 (last visited Aug. 8, 2012).

12. Id.

13. National Human Genome Research Institute, Frequently Asked Questions About Genetic Testing (updated Feb. 18, 2012), available at

http://www.genome.gov/19516567 (last visited Aug. 8, 2012).

14. National Human Genome Research Institute, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, supra.

15. See Geron Corp., Geron to Focus on its Novel Cancer Programs (Nov. 14, 2011), available at http://ir.geron.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=67323&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1635764&highlight= (last visited Dec. 3, 2012).

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S


Laws Related to Destructive Embryo Research

At least SEVEN STATES either expressly or implicitly ban destructive human embryo research onIVF-created embryos and/or cloned human embryos: AZ, IN, LA, ME, OK, PA, and SD

At least NINE STATES expressly or implicitly permit destructive experimentation on IVF-createdembryos: CA, CT, IL, IA, MD, MA, MO, MI, and NJ.

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S


Laws Related to Human Cloning

EIGHT STATES ban cloning for any purpose, including both cloning-to-produce-children andcloning-for-biomedical-research: AZ, AR, IN, MI, ND, OK, SD, and VA.

TEN STATES allow human cloning for destructive embryo research (cloning-for-biomedical-research), but prohibit attempting to bring a cloned child to term (cloning-to-produce-children):CA, CT, IL, IA, MD, MA, MO, MT, NJ, and RI.

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S


Funding of Cloning and Stem Cell Research

At least EIGHT STATES use or statutorily allow the use of state tax dollars to fund human cloningand/or destructive human embryo research: CA, CT, IL, MD, MA, NJ, NY, and WI.

At least SIX STATES restrict the funding or use of state facilities or tax credits for human cloningand/or destructive human embryo research: AZ, IN, KS, LA, NE, and VA.

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S


Other Restrictions on Cloning and Stem Cell Research

At least FIVE STATES prohibit experimentation on aborted fetuses: IN, ND, OH, OK, and SD.

At least 14 STATES prohibit experimentation only on live and/or aborted viable fetuses: AR, FL,KY, LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NM, PA, and RI.

At least 19 states prohibit fetal experimentation to varying degrees:

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S


Laws Related to Chimeras (Human-Animal Hybrids)

TWO STATES prohibit the creation of human-animal hybrids: AZ and LA.

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S


ART Regulations

At least 11 STATES regulate the provision of assisted reproductive technologies, to varyingdegrees: AZ, CA, CT, FL, LA, MD, NH, OK, PA, WI, and VA.

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S


Informed Consent for ART

At least FOUR STATES require some level of informed consent before a patient undergoesassisted reproductive technologies: CA, CT, MA, and VA.

8/13/2019 05 Bioethics(1)


B I O E T H I C S

Laws Related to Embryo Donation and Adoption

At least TEN STATES provide varying levels of guidance for embryo donation: CA, NJ, NM, ND, OH,OK, TX, UT, WA, and WY.

At least THREE STATES provide varying levels of guidance for embryo donation and allow forembryo adoption: FL, GA, and LA.

05 bioethics(1)

Documents