Today, medical research has shown the potential to prolong and improve people's lives. It turns out that this is valuable for parents who have no children to become parents. However, many of the embryos produced are sometimes not used to establish pregnancy. The ethical aspects of such research can be questioned. Regarding what their researchers do, the ethics of any country depends to a large extent on the field of research being carried out. Renssealaer Potter first promulgated these ethics in 1970 for biosphere conservation research.
Human embryo research ethics should strike a fair balance between human embryo research regulations and strong human rights protection, more specifically the right to health. However, there may be a problem, for example, if a person's basic rights, such as the right to health, may require research on the embryo, does this basic right take precedence over the state's ban on such research in their national social context? Consider an authority that violates human dignity? If the right to health is used to prove international regulations that allow human embryo research, then one must also ask how to protect other fundamental rights to prevent the adverse effects of such human embryo research. This does encourage patients with severe illnesses around the world to apply for cloning from scientists to conduct research to aid their right to health. Therefore, people with good financial support will try to benefit from the advantages of this research, which may also jeopardize respect for the basic right to life. Therefore, global bioethics requires us to be responsible for our actions and to recognize ourselves how social, political, economic, religious and other traditions and our personal lives are consistent with bioethical principles.
International law is increasingly focusing on drafting universal regulations on human embryo research to protect people's right to health. The protagonist of global bioethics believes that it is not easy to solve the international regulatory issues of human embryo research without an authorized international agency. In general, the universal rules of human embryo research and bioethics are not easy. In order to succeed, it must accommodate and trust different participants, including not only countries, but also international organizations, private groups, the scientific community, pharmaceutical companies, and so on. Still, it is foreseeable that all of this will reach a consensus. The actor may be quite difficult or impossible.
Some EU member states have specific legislation on human embryonic stem cells [hESC] and its use in research. Sweden, the United Kingdom, Spain and Belgium allow the creation of embryos for research purposes. However, the Czech Republic, Finland, Denmark, France, Greece, the Netherlands and Portugal allow new hESCs to be derived from embryos produced by assisted reproductive technology and in vitro fertilization to induce pregnancy, but only if they are no longer available for that purpose. Germany and Italy have stricter hESC research regulations. Instead, Austria, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Ireland, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Estonia, Bulgaria, Hungary. Public and private conflicts of interest related to ethical bioethics exist at both the international and national levels. The No. 19 opinion of the European Science and New Technology Ethics Group on March 16, 2004, dealing with certain aspects of the cord blood bank, especially the commercial cord blood bank, fully illustrates the plight of Europe at this point. A country like Spain.
The European Community also strives to establish a bioethical basis for policies and regulations to control the potential risks of commercial application of new technologies, such as new technologies related to the environmental release of genetic engineering and modified organizations.
By adopting three possible methods, namely, cultural imperialism and value absolutism, value relativism, cross-culturalism and valueism, the bioethical principles shared by all nations and cultures can be realized. The first approach involves defending and preserving values and imposing them on other cultures to be universally applied as principles and rules. The second is to reject the universal validity of value and recognize that multiple values are the basis of principles and rules in different cultures. The third way that seems more powerful than before is to find common fundamental values that transcend culture and can be used to form common bioethical principles.
Although there are common standards related to human cloning and human embryo research in a few countries, the current legislation on this subject is not so positive and powerful enough to achieve effective legal harmony. These global issues can only be better addressed in a multilateral manner. The study of human embryos not only jeopardizes human civilization, but also jeopardizes basic human rights and dignity. This should not prevent us from gaining the benefits or advantages of this technology. Since science and technology are growing faster than the law, maintaining a balance between the two may be an appropriate remedy. At the same time, it is important to investigate who will be the most profitable or beneficial side of such research.
Orignal From: Global human embryo research ethics
No comments:
Post a Comment