Our approach to therapeutic cloning thus remains unchanged.

South Africa will continue to strictly regulate therapeutic cloning.

Belgium voted against the Declaration because it makes no distinction between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning.

The Declaration annexed to the resolution is difficult to interpret as permitting therapeutic cloning and does not respect the differing views of Member States on therapeutic cloning.

Mr. Lovald (Norway) The Norwegian Government opposes both reproductive cloning of human beings and cloning for therapeutic purposes.

Human cloning for therapeutic purposes would seek to reverse that natural order of things.

Many people are still unaware that women s eggs are a crucial part of therapeutic cloning.

The debate over therapeutic cloning is, of course, hardly limited to the US and Italy.

We also believe that the text of the resolution does not cover the fundamental and well known differences that exist between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning.

In accordance with the Declaration, States will adopt relevant legislation which prohibits reproductive cloning but which allows, within the relevant legal framework, the development of therapeutic cloning.

However countries vary in their understanding of the moral, ethical and legal questions related to research on therapeutic cloning.

Japan will go forward with the implementation of therapeutic cloning research under strict conditions, while fully respecting human dignity.

Therapeutic cloning research may well open up important avenues for the advancement of medicine that otherwise would remain closed.

The debate over the past three years, however, has highlighted key differences between States as regards therapeutic cloning and embryo research.

We reaffirm that the Declaration is non binding and that it will not affect our policy on therapeutic cloning in the future.

Similarly, the latest polls in Italy suggest that the overwhelming majority of those who intend to vote are in favor of therapeutic cloning.

We believe that it is left to Member States to interpret it and to decide whether to permit or to prohibit therapeutic cloning.

We consider the research into therapeutic cloning to be aimed at protecting human life and therefore not inconsistent with the Declaration that has just been adopted.

It is also our understanding that the Declaration does not prohibit therapeutic cloning, especially when it is being conducted under the strict supervision of relevant national authorities.

From the outset, my delegation warned that the creation of a simple and straightforward dichotomy between so called reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning was leading us towards an excessive simplification of the question, given all of the unknown factors that science has yet to uncover.

However, we consider the merits of therapeutic cloning on a case by case basis, according to the bioethical guidelines laid down with the approval of our National Bioethical Committee.

The Chinese delegation voted against the Declaration because the Declaration's wording is too confusing, and the prohibition it contains could be misunderstood as applying to all research into therapeutic cloning.

Therapeutic cloning research and its application, when conducted under strict regulations, will contribute to the enhancement of human dignity by relieving the pain, suffering and misery of millions of people.

The United Kingdom is a strong supporter of therapeutic cloning research because it has the potential to revolutionize medicine in this century in the way that antibiotics did in the last.

However, it should be stressed that the Chinese Government will maintain its stance against reproductive human cloning and will strengthen its regulation and control of research into therapeutic cloning in order to ensure that human dignity and the internationally shared ethical concept of human life will not be undermined.

With respect to therapeutic cloning, we believe that, in the interest of science and the well being of humankind, it is reasonable to maintain, at the national level, the option of proceeding with that form of cloning, within strictly defined procedures and conditions and under the appropriate controls.

Basically, their rejection of the text is a recognition that the poorly named therapeutic cloning requires the creation of a new human life for the explicit purpose of destroying it for scientific research.

Although South Africa would have preferred much clearer language that would clearly permit therapeutic cloning, we remain sensitive to the views of those who would not have been able to live with such language.

It is because of the intransigence of those that were not prepared to recognize that other sovereign States, after extensive dialogue and due democratic process, may decide to permit strictly controlled applications of therapeutic cloning.

The Spanish Government firmly opposes the reproductive cloning of human beings, but its position is different with regard to therapeutic cloning, which will probably be viewed positively in the draft law on biomedical research that is currently being formulated by the Government of Spain and will be submitted for consideration by Parliament in due course.

Years of studies, and the passionate pleas of patients worldwide, are finally opening the way to a technique somatic cell nuclear transfer, also known as therapeutic cloning that may bring about epochal changes for the health of us all.

The Nobelists point is that, as far as therapeutic cloning is concerned, rather than attempting global prohibition, it would be much wiser, and possibly more effective, to promote an international regulatory regime through ample legalization of stem cell research.

We believe that the language arrived at in the Declaration that has just now been adopted is deliberately ambiguous so as not to infringe on the positions of those who will want to continue with research into therapeutic cloning, whilst at the same time it allows for those who want to prohibit all forms of human cloning to do so in their own national jurisdictions.

United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning

Few therapeutic and diagnostic options were available.

It is, indeed, an inconceivable paradox that the proponents of human cloning for therapeutic purposes would opt to destroy or sacrifice human life for the human embryo is a human life, a human being in its formative stages so as to save the life of another.

Therapeutic abortion is a recognized right of women.

Care farming is the therapeutic use of farming practices.

A bit of cloning, you can get them back.

International convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings

It is essential that reproductive cloning be categorically prohibited.

South Africa, for its part, is against reproductive human cloning.

Vaccines that treat existing cancer are known as therapeutic cancer vaccines.

They could also take enrichment courses (aerobics, therapeutic techniques and handicrafts).

56 93. International convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings