Stem Cell Division: Abortion Law and Its Influence on the Adoption of Radically Different Embryonic Stem Cell Legislation in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany

By Belew, Kara L. | Texas International Law Journal, Spring 2004 | Go to article overview

Stem Cell Division: Abortion Law and Its Influence on the Adoption of Radically Different Embryonic Stem Cell Legislation in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany


Belew, Kara L., Texas International Law Journal


I. INTRODUCTION

A seventeen-year international race to capture and sustainably culture human embryonic stem cells ended in 1998 when a team of scientists from the University of Wisconsin isolated and cultured human embryonic stem cells for the first time.1 Their highly publicized success may have "profound implications for transplant medicine and drug discovery" and eventually lead to the eradication of many debilitating and lifethreatening human diseases.2

Despite its potential to revolutionize modern medicine, however, research on pluripotent embryonic stem (ES) cells remains highly controversial. In order to obtain ES cells, scientists must destroy a living human embryo by placing an extraction device into the embryo's inner cell mass to remove the cells. The procedure-called derivation-is decried by many as ethically abhorrent and akin to murder since the developing embryo perishes as a result.

An intense and persistent public debate has arisen on both sides of the Atlantic over the moral, political, and legal implications surrounding ES cell research.3 Nations legislating on the issue, including the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany, are facing many significant challenges; they must balance the promise of novel lifesaving biomedical technologies thought possible through the advancement of ES cell research against the need to defend and preserve the sanctity of human life at its very origin. Since 1998, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany have responded to this formidable task by adopting ES cell legislation that is radically different in both scope and design.

For the past fourteen years, the United Kingdom has had a progressive and well-developed embryonic research licensing and regulatory regime. In response to recent scientific advancements in human ES cell research, in 2000, the United Kingdom adopted legislation broadening its already existing research regulations to encompass and legitimize additional types of ES cell experimentation. As a result, the United Kingdom has one of the most "liberal" stem cell research programs in the world, allowing for the creation and destruction of human embryos for purely scientific purposes.

Conversely, over the same period Germany strictly prohibited most types of embryonic research and in 2002 adopted highly restrictive ES cell legislation in response to scientific progress. The 2002 legislation outlaws the derivation process from occurring within German borders and makes experimentation on ES cells possible only if the ES cells were derived before January 2002 and imported to Germany under strict regulatory controls. As a result, Germany has some of the most restrictive ES cell experimental prohibitions of any Western nation.

Unlike her European counterparts, the United States has yet to adopt national ES cell legislation. Instead, the federal government has taken a laissez-faire approach toward stem cell research, permitting virtually unregulated private sector experimentation (although several individual states have adopted regulations). Further, in contrast to both the United Kingdom and Germany, the U.S. debate has not focused on the establishment of national regulatory controls, but instead, on whether U.S. federal tax dollars should be utilized to fund embryonic research programs. Recently, President George W. Bush announced his decision to allow federal funds to be utilized in ES cell research, albeit only on stem cell lines derived prior to August 2001. Bush's decision ended a twenty-year moratorium on the federal funding of stem cell research in the United States.

The United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany are nations with relatively similar institutions, political ideologies, religions, and marketplace forces.4 Yet, these nations have enacted radically different legislation in responding to the same basic questions: When does life begin? How should science and morality interact?

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Stem Cell Division: Abortion Law and Its Influence on the Adoption of Radically Different Embryonic Stem Cell Legislation in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.