The World Youth Alliance - Europe

23A Rue Belliard

1040 Brussels
Tel: 0032 2 732 7605
Fax: 0032 2 732 7889
europe@wya.net
www.worldyouthalliance.org

WYA Statement on Human Cloning

The World Youth Alliance and its members continue to hold the position that any form of human
cloning procedure intended for either reproductive or research (“therapeutic”) purposes poses a considerable
threat to human dignity. The World Youth Alliance encourages all nations to be opposed to all forms of human
cloning. We welcome the UN’s decision on cloning1 and as representatives of youth from diverse cultural,
religious and ethnic backgrounds, and call upon all nations to support this UN declaration in their national
legislation. We also support work towards a convention banning all forms of human cloning.
“Therapeutic” cloning, by definition, necessarily involves the destruction of a human life. As
such, it represent a unique threat to human life and dignity, being the first time in history that human beings
would be created solely for their destruction – their inherent value disregarded and their genetic material seized
for utilitarian purposes. Creating human beings in order to destroy them would instrumentalize human life
because it is an inconceivable paradox to sacrifice some lives in order to serve others.
Several recent developments in biotechnology, including adult stem cell technologies, have seen
successful treatment of nerve and spinal cord damage, retinal damage, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease,
muscular dystrophy, diabetes, stroke and liver disease, among others. As expressed in recent days, many nations
are troubled by research cloning because it requires the destruction of embryos. Therefore, other methods of
biotechnology that do not abridge human dignity should be pursued in preference to research cloning.
The international community should place its financial support behind other biotechnologies that
are consistent with respect for human dignity. The World Youth Alliance also encourages “States and other
entities to direct funds that might have been used for human cloning technologies to pressing global issues in
developing countries such as famine, desertification, infant mortality and diseases, including the human
HIV/AIDS.”2
Human cloning poses a particular and potentially grave threat to the dignity of women. Women
face being exploited because women’s bodies would be used as a market commodity. Legalization of human
cloning would result in a high demand for human eggs and the potential exploitation of millions of women
whose eggs would be harvested for purposes of research. We must further fear that in order to meet demand for
eggs, women, particularly those in developing nations, may be subject to risky drug treatments and possibly
even financial coercion or other forms of manipulation. Although this concern has been raised in recent
discussions in the sixth committee at the United Nations we strongly encourage the international community not
to underestimate the serious setback that human cloning poses to the dignity of women.
Only a complete ban can protect against reproductive cloning because once cloned human beings
are created for research, it would be virtually impossible to monitor whether cloned embryos are being
implanted for reproductive purposes.

Over one million youth from all continents, who are members of the World Youth Alliance,
believe that only a total, comprehensive ban on human cloning would protect and respect the dignity of all
human persons. We respectfully ask you to support the UN declaration against cloning and encourage its
implementation on the national level.

1
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/ga10333.doc.htm
2
Sixth committee working group (Sept/Oct 2003, Draft Resolution, A/C.6/58/L.2)
 The World Youth Alliance - Europe
23A Rue Belliard
1040 Brussels
Tel: 0032 2 732 7605
Fax: 0032 2 732 7889
europe@wya.net
www.worldyouthalliance.org

Developments at the United Nations on Human Cloning

Recently the United Nations adopted a political declaration on Cloning calling all countries to prohibit
all forms of human cloning “inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection
of human life.” It has taken many years of resolutions to finally adopt this position. Many countries are
still calling for a convention to ban all forms of cloning. Reproductive cloning is universally
acknowledged as unethical, but there is variance over the moral status of so called “therapeutic”
cloning.

In December 2001, France and Germany proposed a resolution to the General assembly which opened
the procedure to develop a treaty to ban reproductive cloning. In February 2002, a new subcommittee
started this process, led by proposals. This process was stalled for a year because countries voted for a
delay of one year. The Costa Rican delegation took up the initiative in 2003, proposing to have a
Convention to ban all forms of human cloning (both therapeutic and reproductive). This proposal
attempted to define cloning as a crime, establish a legal framework to punish cloning research and
create international cooperation between authorities in preventing cloning. This proposal was
supported by the US delegation and 60 other countries.

A proposal by Iran, on behalf of the 57 OIC states succeeded in deferring this treaty until 2005 was
passed by 80 votes to 79, however this decision was reversed and the General Assembly decided to
revisit the issue in 2004. A resolution was proposed by Costa Rica and 67 nations joined in calling for
a worldwide ban. Costa Rica directly emphasized Kantian ethics that human beings must not used as a
means but should be always be considered as an end in itelf. Costa Rica has also emphasized concern
in its submission of the dangers of a medical, physical and pshycological nature that cloning may
apply for the individuals involved. Belgium took over the initiative (from France and Germany) of
proposing a partial ban on cloning which initially collected the support of 20 countries. Under the
Belgian proposal, reproductive cloning would be banned but reproductive cloning would have been
tolerated.

A different political declaration (with a non binding resolution) was drafted in 2004 by Italy, with
some ambiguous language. This message would have had sent a strong message that the world
community wants individual countries to pass legislation banning all forms of cloning. This was an
easier process than drafting a convention. A convention are binding on the states that ratify them and
can take years to negociate. This Italian resolution was the basis for the resolution passed by the
General Assembly in March 2005. This resolution paid particular attention to avoiding the exploitation
of women.
 The World Youth Alliance - Europe
23A Rue Belliard
1040 Brussels
Tel: 0032 2 732 7605
Fax: 0032 2 732 7889
europe@wya.net
www.worldyouthalliance.org

Developments at the European Union on Bioethical Issues

Enshrined in the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union is the right to the integrity of the person
(article 3). This article specifically includes the prohibition of reproductive cloning of human beings, the
prohibition of eugenic practices, and the prohibition of making the human body and its parts a source of
financial gain. It also calls for the free and informed consent of the person concerned in fields of medicine and
biology. In EU member states reproductive cloning therefore is prohibited (for human beings) and national
legislative bodies are responsible for authorizing or prohibiting other forms of cloning (i.e. therapeutic cloning).
The Council of Europe has written the Convention on human rights and biomedicine3 (adopted 1997, in force
1999), but the only countries to ratify this document have been Portugal, Spain, Denmark and Greece (but it
was signed by Finland, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Sweden). This document protects the
interests and welfare of the human being over the sole interest of society of science, in the name of human
dignity (Article 2). This convention also establishes the principle of free consent (art. 5), prohibits the
production of human embryos in vitro for research (art. 18) and the use of the human body as such for financial
gain (art. 21). An additional protocol4 to this on the prohibition of reproductive cloning of human beings came
into force in March 2001; however Portugal, Spain and Greece were the only countries to ratify this (while
Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Sweden signed it).

It has been acknowledged that "there is a consensus in the Community that interventions in the human germ line
and the cloning of human beings offend public order and morality."5 However, some nations such as the United
Kingdom granted licenses to some scientists to practice therapeutic cloning. This is despite other agreements
such as the 1966 International Covenant on civil and political rights that prohibits scientific and medical
experiments without the consent of persons (article 7). The European Parliament has also called for a universal
prohibition of the cloning of human beings at international level and has stressed the danger of differentiating
between therapeutic and reproductive cloning.6 The European parliament has also called each Member State to
enact binding legislation prohibiting all research into any kind of human cloning within its territory and provide
criminal penalties for any breach. The EU Commission has a European group on ethics in science and new
technologies, and there is a commission on life sciences and biotechnology.7

The European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 have finalized a directive on setting standards
of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of

3
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/164.htm (Oviedo, 1997).
4
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/168.htm (Paris, 1998).
5
Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection
of biotechnological inventions n.40, http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!
CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31998L0044&model=guichett
6
European parliament resolution on human cloning, 9/2000,
http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?
PRG=CALDOC&FILE=000907&LANGUE=EN&TPV=DEF&SDOCTA=8&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FI
RST&POS=1
7
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/biotechnology/introduction_en.html
human tissues and cells.8 This has put into place a regulatory framework that ensures quality and safety
standards in the European Union. The directive states that as a matter of principle, tissue and cell application
programmes should be founded on the philosophy of voluntary and unpaid donation of tissue and cell donations
and this is a factor which may contribute to high safety standards and the protection of human health.9 The
directive ensures that gametes for IVF work are obtained on the basis of voluntary donation only when it comes
into force in national legislation. This prevents the exploitation of women, particularly marginalized and poor
women who may be coerced into entering the dangerous procedure of donating their eggs for financial
incentive.

The European parliament recently had a hearing and resolution10 on reports11 that British fertility clinics were
procuring eggs from abroad and payment was being offered to Romanian women. The Romanian authorities
closed the clinic concerned in this case. The European parliament called the commission to investigate the
reports, warned about the potential exploitation of women and reminded the European institutions that the
human body should not be a source of financial gain. The parliament showed concerns for the possibility of
serious effects on women’s health (through Ovarian Hyperstimulation syndrome12) and condemned all
trafficking of the human body and its parts.

The 7th European research framework programme is being prepared for the next time period (starting in
2007).The Parliament has already asked the Commission to prohibit funding for human cloning under any EU
programme. There are few precautions to ensure that funding for embryonic stem cell research does not take
place on the EU budget, despite the fact that this method is prohibited in at least 8 member states. However,
embryonic stem cell research has never been funded by the EU in the past and it is unlikely given the
parliament’s intervention that the 7th Framework programme will include such funding.

Of all the European nations, Britain has demonstrated that it has the most permissive legislation in most areas of
bioethics. Recently the Human fertilization and embryology authority (HFEA) had a consultation process13 on
assisted conception. This process analyzed whether it would be acceptable to have “compensation” of £1,000
for those who donate their eggs. The process of assisted conception in Britain and other European countries is
currently against the convention on the rights of the child. This states that children have the right to know and to
be raised by their parents.14

Recently Ian Wilmut, the Scientist who created Dolly the Sheep, was granted a licence by the HFEA to perform
cell nuclear replacement, a form of human cloning.15 This will enable him to study Motor Neurone Disease in
detail and it is only the second time that such a licence has been granted in the United Kingdom since the
legalization of therapeutic cloning in 2001. Yet scientific studies in this area continue to demonstrate that adult
stem cell research has been far more effective in scientific advances.16

8
Directive 2004/23/EC. http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!
CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=32004L0023&model=guichett
9
Directive 2004/23/EC (18 and 19).
10
http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2005-
0074+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&LEVEL=3&NAV=X
11
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4118625.stm
12
A serious case of this syndrome occurs according to the WHO in 1% of women who donate their eggs. It
is potentially fatal and there are also other adverse side effects linked with egg donation.
13
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/PressOffice/Archive/1100172284
14
Convention on the rights of the child, article 7 and 9. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
15
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4245267.stm
16
www.stemcellresearch.org
 World Youth Alliance - Europe
23a Rue Belliard, Box 6
B-1040 Brussels
Tel: 0032 2 732 7605
Fax: 0032 2 732 7889
europe@wya.net
www.worldyouthalliance.org

The World Youth Alliance - Europe

Considerations
concerning Human Cloning and Stem Cell Research

The World Youth Alliance - Europe welcomes the discussion of human genetics at all levels in
society. It hopes that through these considerations, politicians, academia, media and civil society
will gain a deeper awareness of human dignity and the infinite value of every human being. This
appreciation will lead to greater respect and protection of the embryo, the child, men, women,
the elderly and the handicapped.

In its concern for human dignity and society as a whole, the World Youth Alliance - Europe
raises the following points of concern in the field of human genetics.

As regards human cloning:

1) The difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning exists only in intention. The
method and the ethical implications are the same. Therefore we consider that:

a) Therapeutic and reproductive cloning differ only with respect to their

purpose. The method of creating the clone is identical in both cases. An act
violating human dignity is not rendered ethical by its purpose.

b) Therapeutic and reproductive cloning differ in that the latter technique

involves the implantation of an already created cloned embryo. If therapeutic
cloning is allowed but reproductive cloning is not then any cloned embryo
created will by law have to be killed.

c) Reproductive cloning could be performed legally if one country had

legislation permitting only therapeutic cloning while another had no such
legislation but allowed the implantation of existing embryos. National
prohibitions will be circumvented by the simple expedient of transferring
embryos from one country to another.
 d) Therapeutic cloning leads, in practice, to reproductive cloning. Once
society becomes accustomed to therapeutic cloning it is only a matter of time
before reproductive cloning becomes acceptable.

2) The term therapeutic cloning is misleading: It is distinguished from reproductive

cloning because the intention is not to grow the human being to its full size but rather
destroy it before implantation. Accordingly, it should rather be called ‘destructive
cloning.’

3) The instrumentalization of human beings – producing as chosen – will negatively

influence the image society has of human beings. Care for the sick and handicapped will
decrease.

a) If there were human beings from certain cell lines, they would all be
categorized and lead a socially challenged life.

b) Clones would be deprived of their right to be genetically unique (presupposing

a consensus on these rights). Further, they would suffer great health risks, as we
have witnessed in the instances of animal cloning.

c) The harvesting of eggs as well as the need for surrogate mothers will
instrumentalize woman and decrease society’s respect for them once more.

d) It is a violation of the human dignity of the embryo for it to be used only as a

means to an end. Even if one were to hold that the embryo is only a potential
human being, it would still deserve special protection.

e)To clone and use a human organism for research purposes changes the attitude
of society towards people in general and also towards their offspring. If human
life is regarded as disposable in its early stage it will be regarded as disposable at
a later stage of development also.

3) Experiments with animal cloning have had a very low success rate. It took 276
unsuccessful attempts before Dolly the sheep was created. Therefore,

a) A fully developed clone as well as any material obtained from a

destroyed clone could contain genetic material with a high risk of malformation,
premature ageing, cancer, etc. Harvested grafts and tissues would carry these
risks.

b) Due to the abnormal development of most cloned embryos (for example

the enlarged animal syndrome), many abortions will have to be performed. This
is lethal to the embryo and onerous for the mother.

4) Regarding research on human beings:

a) Scientists have stated that human cloning is not necessary for research
and does not promise substantial benefits;
 b) Motives such as financial gain or mere scientific interest cannot justify
violating human dignity;

c) Here, an old slogan may be adapted: “No to animal and human testing!”

5) Human beings cannot be subjects of experimentations which are of no value to

them. (Article 17 European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine.) This
prohibition is also contained in the Hippocratic oath which requires knowledge to be used
only to heal.

6) In prohibiting the creation of human embryos for research purposes article 18(2)
of the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine thereby prohibits all
therapeutic cloning.

7) Human cloning requires many eggs. Women’s dignity will be violated by

reducing them to egg donors, and subjecting them to strong hormone therapy and surgical
harvesting. Attitudes towards women would be adversely affected as a result.

8) Even if an embryo in its early stages is not considered to be a human person,

human life should still be treated with great respect – an ethical barrier has to be upheld.
Accordingly, human life should not be manufactured (= hand made) since this risks
turning human embryos into products or possessions.

9) Therapeutic cloning and the law

a) In many statements the European Parliament has condemned the cloning

of human beings – disregarding method or intent. At least some consistency in
approach is a basic element of democracy. The European Parliament should
therefore take its former statements into careful consideration (as, for example, is
expressly required for the Temporary Committee on Human Genetics).

b) Several legal documents of the European Union state that human cloning
is ‘against the ordre public’ (see for example Directive 98/44/EC).

10) The long-term effects of human cloning practices cannot yet be foreseen: the
genetic system had a stable development over a period of millions of years. To interfere
now could lead to unknown and potentially disastrous results.

11) The way human cloning is currently being discussed raises hopes in patients
which can probably never be fulfilled.

As regards stem cell research:

1) The use of adult stem cells is a promising alternative:

 a) Embryonic stem cell research has to date not yielded any therapeutic benefits, by
contrast adult stem cell research has yielded a great many.

b) Adult stem cells therapy:

I) have a lower risk of rejection since the cells come from the patient

II) allow a more controlled growth of transplanted stem cells.

2) Allowing embryonic stem cell research will inevitably divert funds and research efforts
from promising alternatives which are not ethically problematic.

3) The human embryo – even in its very early stages – belongs to the human species,
because:

a) It is human life and it is an individual;

b) Every scientific indication suggests that natural twinning is determined at the

latest at the two-cell stage. There is no reliable recorded case of artificially
induced twinning which has resulted in more than one human embryo surviving;

c) The development of the human organism is continuously taking place without

any qualitative transitions. Human life is there from conception and deserves
special protection;

d) The zygote and the adult share the same genetic make-up (material identity);

e) Personhood cannot be acquired gradually;

f) If we are not sure whether embryos are human persons or beings we must adopt
the safer course (in dubio pro reo). Thus, in case of doubt in such delicate
matters, we cannot experiment on human embryos.

4) Destructive embryo research is not morally equivalent to abortion. In abortion, the

interests of the mother could be said to conflict with the rights of the embryo. However,
no such conflict exists with embryos in vitro: the interests of scientists do not equate to
those of the mother and therefore in no case can they justify the destruction of the
embryo.

5) Concerning European Union funding of research on embryonic stem cells:

a) The European Union shall respect the law of the Member States and not fund what is
illegal in a large number of Member States.

b) Not to respect the law of the Member States will create division instead of unity. This
is against the fundamental idea of Europe.
 The World Youth Alliance - Europe
23A Rue Belliard
1040 Brussels
Tel: 0032 2 732 7605
Fax: 0032 2 732 7889
europe@wya.net
www.worldyouthalliance.org

Pro Cloning Arguments analyzed

There is an almost unanimous consensus around the world that reproductive cloning is a gross
violation of the dignity of the human person and an assault upon humanity. There is not a single
country at the United Nations calling for a permissive stance on reproductive cloning. Opinion at the
United Nations diverges over the issue of therapeutic cloning. This is partly because some nations
have vested economic interests in this area and national legislation that permits research in this area.
The following arguments have been used at the United Nations recently and they shall be analyzed.

During the recent debates in the United Nations17, the delegation of Mexico claimed that there was a
dichotomy between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. The two processes are identical in method
and differ only in purpose. Therefore we cannot consider that these forms of cloning are different.
China stated that different countries varied in their understanding of the text’s inherent moral, ethical
and religious aspects. Nevertheless, establishment of universal criteria for international issues must be
established in concordance with an understanding of the common good. Diversity and plurality in
understanding cannot justify the eradication of traditional norms of morality.

Republic of Korea Republic of Korea’s delegation thought that therapeutic dignity would reaffirm
human dignity by relieving pain and suffering. The South African delegation considered therapeutic
cloning to be aimed at protecting human life. These predictable utilitarian arguments are deeply flawed
in their thinking. The destruction of human life, even in its earliest stages in order to provide the
alleviation of suffering for others can not be considered in concordance with human dignity.
Therapeutic cloning is not very therapeutic for those embryos that are subject to it. An act violating
human dignity is not rendered ethical by its purpose.

What is needed at the international level is a convention banning all forms of human cloning in order
to protect the dignity of the human person and in order to avoid the exploitation of vulnerable women.
The British government has already demonstrated that it will ignore the UN’s declaration. A
convention would bring a greater amount of moral authority from the international community and
whilst it would only be binding to the nations that sign it, it would send another clear message to
governments of the world that human cloning is morally repugnant and a grave offense towards the
human community. Governments of the world should also analyze how support for article 3 of the

17
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/ga10333.doc.htm
Universal Declaration of Human Rights18 (passed with complete support in 1948) has been blatantly
disregarded in some national legislation (in many bioethical areas) and should propose and implement
legislation that ensures that everyone from conception to natural death enjoys the right to life.
The World Youth Alliance - Europe
23A Rue Belliard
1040 Brussels
Tel: 0032 2 732 7605
Fax: 0032 2 732 7889
europe@wya.net
www.worldyouthalliance.org

WYA Summary of arguments against Therapeutic Cloning

•Human cloning is a violation of human dignity because human beings are made an object of
experiment and a human embryo would be used only as a means to an end. It creates a class of humans
who exist only as a means to achieve the end of others. An act violating human dignity is not rendered
ethical by its purpose. Human cloning leads to the commodification and commercialization of human
life. It destroys the dignity of person and is the gateway to genetic manipulation and control of human
beings. Overall Human embryos should not be created for experimentation or grown for body parts.
•It is a tragic paradox that some believe one should sacrifice the life of one human being in order to
serve the life of another. To destroy human beings to save others simply makes no sense. Science
should serve human dignity.
•Human cloning risks the health of women and involves the exploitation of women. The harvesting of
eggs and need of surrogate mothers in order to obtain eggs instrumentalizes women. Vulnerable
women in poor countries may be exploited to obtain the eggs. There is no justification for harvesting
of eggs from women who are not undergoing fertility treatment for themselves. Little is known about
the causes, course and cures of Ovarian Hyper Stimulation Syndrome (OHSS), which according to the
WHO occurs in 1% of patients each time they undergo a cycle of egg harvesting. No doctor should
participate in a dangerous medical practice that is of no benefit to the patient.
•Accepting therapeutic cloning could mean that it would be a matter of time to accept reproductive
cloning. Banning only the implantation of embryos is virtually unenforceable and very difficult in
reality. Therapeutic and reproductive cloning differ only in purpose and the method of creation is
identical. Legalizing therapeutic cloning whilst reproductive cloning remains illegal means that by law
a cloned human embryo would have to be killed.
•The speculative experimentation of human cloning would divert resources and delay cures from more
pressing issues in the world.
•There have been no clinical results from embryonic stem cell research; however there have been 56
from adult stem cell research. A large number of scientists now think adult stem cell research offers
greater promise and options. It has been far more successful in clinical treatments and has no ethical
dilemmas.
•The very low success rate of experiments with animal cloning suggests that by its very nature cloning
is a unreliable and deeply flawed method. It took 276 unsuccessful attempts to create Dolly the sheep
who incidentally had premature aging.

18
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
•Human life should never be bought or sold as a commodity (as described in the EU charter of
fundamental rights, article 3).
•Over 80% (approx) of the world’s population believes in the sanctity of human life and therapeutic
cloning is an insult to this concept.
•Overall human cloning is dangerous, unethical and unnecessary.

The World Youth Alliance - Europe

23A Rue Belliard
1040 Brussels
Tel: 0032 2 732 7605
Fax: 0032 2 732 7889
europe@wya.net
www.worldyouthalliance.org

Useful Bioethical References

European Parliament resolution on the trade in human egg cells (P6_TA-PROV(2005)0074)

http://www2.europarl.eu.int/omk/sipade2?PUBREF=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2005-
0074+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&LEVEL=3&NAV=X

Adoption of political declaration on cloning by United Nations General Assembly

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/ga10333.doc.htm

Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting
standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage
and distribution of human tissues and cells
http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!
CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=32004L0023&model=guichett

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

http://www.europarl.eu.int/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

United Nations – Ad hoc committee on an international convention against the reproductive cloning of
human beings (includes a description of developments at the UN on cloning).
http://www.un.org/law/cloning/

UNESCO- The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (This declaration
was adopted by the General Assembly on 9th December1998, resolution 53/152).
http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=2228&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

United Nations declaration of Human Rights (1948)

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 16 December 1966
Article 7 : “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific
experimentation.”
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm

Council of Europe- Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being
with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and
Biomedicine (ETS No.164) of 4 April 1997.
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/164.htm

Council of Europe- Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, on the
Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings (ETS No.168) of 12 January 1998.
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/168.htm

Convention on the Rights of the child

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm