ISSUES RAISED BY HUMAN CLONING RESEARCH HEARING ...

29ered, when a child was born, to pronounce on its life or its death...[A]t Rome,the sone held his life by the tenure of her father’s pleasure...With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencementto its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law,life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, lifeis protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actualviolence, and, in some cases from every degree of danger... 155Wilson concluded that ‘‘[t]he formidable power of a Roman father is unknown to thecommon law. But it vests in the parent such authority as is conducive to the advantageof the child.’’ 156 This sentiment was apparently familiar to lawyers during theFounding era, because it is reflected as well in the legal training of John QuincyAdams, who observed that the common law ‘‘has restrained within proper bounds,even the sacred rights of parental authority, and shewn the cruelty, and the absurdityof abandoning an infant to destruction for any deformity in its bodily frame.’’ 157To paraphrase Justice Harlan, this is a tradition from which we have broken.Based on the common law principle that parental authority must be consistentwith the life and health of the child, states have limited parental control thatthreatens the life or health of the child. For example, parental beliefs against medicaltreatment can be overriden to preserve the life and health of the child. Parentsmay be held responsibility for the death of the child if medical treatment is not provided.Based on this principle, the states have a related interest in limiting parentalcontrol over the genetic destiny of a child.The interests against human cloning cannot be protected short of a prohibition onthe practice. Once cloned, the embryo’s genetic identity is formed and controlledand, while subject to further possible experimentation, it cannot be unaltered. Oncecloned, it is not possible to effectively protect the life of the extracorporeal embryo.Requiring implantation is inconceivable, and placing them for ‘‘adoption’’ would entailfreezing techniques carrying a high risk of death or injury. The only effectiveway to protect the human embryo is to prevent cloning altogether.Each of these concerns independently justifies a ban on human cloning. Each supportsstate action outside the context of abortion to protect human life.CONCLUSIONAs the Professor Gilbert Meilaender testified to the National Bioethics AdvisoryCommission (NBAC) on human cloning, ‘‘sometimes we may only come to understandthe nature of the road we are on when we have already traveled fairly faralong it.’’ 158 Human cloning is the logical outcome and most recent extension of 20years of embryo experimentation and manipulation and may be the most subtle extensionof that technique and philosophy in its denigration of the dignity of thehuman being. It proceeds on a cramped, artificial, and impersonal view of humanbeings and reflects the dehumanizing spirit of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.The impersonal instinct that leads to controlling the genetic destiny of one’s progenycomes from the same instinct that treats the human embryo as just a clump of cells.Hopefully, the publicity and analysis given to human cloning will illuminate andeducation Americans on the entire misguided effort of human embryo experimentationand manipulation.At important junctures in this century, scientists have recognized, as a basic tenetof medical ethics, that protection of the human being is more important than theinterests of science or society. That is the essence of the Nuremburg Code, whichreaffirmed limits on research on human subjects. As the 1975 Helsinki Declarationof the World Medical Association stated, ‘‘Concern for the interests of the subjectmust always prevail over the interest of science and society.’’ 159 Twenty-seven years155 2 The Works of James Wilson 596-97 (R.G. McCloskey ed. (1967). See also Adam Smith,Lectures on Jurisprudence 172-75 (R. Meek, D. Raphael, P. Stein, eds. 1978) (Liberty ClassicsReprint 1982) (quote).156 2 Works of James Wilson at 604.157 2 JQA, Diary of John Quincy Adams 193 (March 1786-December 1788) (entry of April 2,1787).158 Reprinted as Gilbert Meilaender, ‘‘Begetting and Cloning,’’ First Things 41, 43 (June/July1997). See also Gilbert Meilaender, Cloning in Protestant Perspective, 32 Val. U.L. Rev. 707(1998).159 Declaration of Helsinki, World Medical Association (1989), reprinted in 5 Warren T. Reich,Encyclopedia of Bioethics 2766 (Rev. ed. 1995). See also id at 2767 (‘‘In research on man, theinterest of science and society should never take precedence over considerations related to thewell-being of the subject.’’). See also Declaration of Geneva, World Medical Association (1948)(‘‘I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception.’’), reprinted in5 Warren T. Reich, Encyclopedia of Bioethics 2646-47 (Rev. ed. 1995).VerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:46 May 24, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 71495.TXT HCOM2 PsN: HCOM2