In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

14 Why We Must Be Prudent in Research Using Human Embryos: Differing Views of Human Dignity Susumu Shimazono Justi¤cation through Comparisons with Abortion Those who are attempting to rationalize scienti¤c research on human embryos often bring up comparisons to abortion. The question, for example, of whether or not to approve the genetic diagnosis of a fertilized egg prior to its implantation is often discussed through that comparison. This occurred even in Japan. The Research Council in Bioethics, established by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi within the framework of his Commission on Science and Technology, had been charged to consider the handling and use of human embryos and began to discuss this during August 2001. Thereupon a discussion of the morality of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis became one in which comparisons with induced abortion were brought up. In “Hito hai no toriatsukai ni kansuru kihonteki kangaekata”(Basic considerations concerning the use of human embryos), a report of the interim ¤ndings submitted by this panel in December 2003, committee member and legal scholar Hajime Machino expressed an independent view in reference to the topic of abortion. He stated that “in our debate over genetic diagnosis prior to implantation, as long as we in Japan continue shelving the ethical examination of conditions related to abortion freedom here, the tendency to grant far more protection to the fertilized embryo than to the aborted fetus is a very strange outcome indeed”(Sogo kagakugijutsu kaigi 2003, 57). In Japan, performing an abortion was considered a criminal offense and prohibited in 1880. Abortion eventually became tolerated, however, under the Eugenic Protection Act, in 1948 (Fujime 1997). According to the Eugenic Protection Act, “eugenic surgery”was approved, and medical interventions to “prevent the birth of defective offspring”were permitted. In 1996 the Eugenic Protection Act was revised and became the Maternal Protection Act. It stipulated that “in cases where there is fear of serious damage to the health of the mother through the continuation of pregnancy to full-term, or possible physical or economic constraints,”just as in cases where rape has occurred, abortion is permitted. The Maternal Protection Act of 1996, however, did not recognize “defective off- ...

Share