Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Who Should Control the Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines: A Defence of the Donors' Ability to Control

  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper I analyse who should be able to control the use of human embryonic stem cell lines. I distinguish between different kinds of control and analyse a set of arguments that purport to show that the donors of gametes and embryos should not be able to control the use of stem cell lines derived from their embryos. I show these arguments to be either deficient or of so general a scope that they apply not only to donors but also to those who derived the stem cell lines. Since we normally think that stem cell derivers have the right to control the use of the cell lines they derived, we have no justification for denying donors similar rights of control. In the final section I briefly discuss why informed consent is not an appropriate vehicle for transferring or alienating control rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects: Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly Helsinki, Finland, June 1964 and amended by the 29th WMA General Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 1975, 35th WMA General Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983, 41st WMA General Assembly, Hong Kong, September 1989, 48th WMA General Assembly, Somerset West, Republic of South Africa, October 1996 and the 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 2000. Note of Clarification on Paragraph 29 added by the WMA General Assembly, Washington 2002, Note of Clarification on Paragraph 30 added by the WMA General Assembly, Tokyo 2004.

  2. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use.

  3. It is probably misleading to talk about the genetic parents of a cloned embryo, or an embryo produced from cells that are not derived directly from an adult human being. It is misleading because it trades on an equivocation on the term ‘parent’. In one sense (the genetic) an embryo can be a parent, but in another and equally important sense (the social) an embryo can never be a parent. Since genetic parents are still, for the most part, also social agents (e.g., egg and sperm donors), the use of the term ‘genetic parent’ does not sufficiently guard against the equivocation. A better term would probably be ‘immediate genetic progenitor.’

References

  1. Callahan, D. (1972). Abortion: Law, choice and morality. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (2005). Updated guidelines for human pluripotent stem cell research, June 7, 2005.

  3. Denker, H.-W. (2004). Early human development: New data raise important embryological and ethical questions relevant for stem cell research. Naturwissenschaften, 91, 1–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dworkin, R. (1993). Life's dominion. London: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Engelhardt, H. T. (1986). The foundations of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fletcher, J. (1972). Indicators of humanhood: A tentative profile of man. The Hastings Center Report, 2(5), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Geijsen, N., Horoschak, M., Kim, K., et al. (2004). Derivation of embryonic germ cells and male gametes from embryonic stem cells. Nature, 427(6970), 148–154.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Glover, J. (1977). Causing deaths and saving lives. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hahn, W. C. (2002). Immortalization and transformation of human cells. Molecules and Cells, 13(3), 351–361.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Harris, J. (1985). The value of life. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Harris, J. (2004). On cloning. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280(5364), 698–701.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Holm, S. (1986). Hvem afgør liv eller død – De etiske problemer ved prænatal diagnostik. København: Scandinavia.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Holm, S. (1989). The peacable pluralistic society and the question of persons. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 13, 379–386.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Holm, S. (1993). The spare embryo – A red herring in the embryo experimentation debate. Health Care Analysis, 1(1), 63–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Holm, S. (1996). The moral status of the pre-personal human being – The argument from potential reconsidered. In D. Evans (Ed.), Conceiving the embryo (pp. 193–220). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Holm, S. (2003a). The ethical case against stem cell research. Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics, 12, 372–383.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Holm, S. (2003b). Does the end sanctify the means? In L. Honnefelder & D. Lanzerath (Eds.), Cloning in biomedical research and reproduction (pp. 427–436). Bonn: Bonn University Press. [German version in same volume p. 61–72].

    Google Scholar 

  19. Holm, S. (2004). The creation lottery and method in bioethics: A comment on Savulescu and Harris. Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics, 13, 283–287.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hong, M.-K., & Bero, L. A. (2002). How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke. BMJ, 325, 1413–1416.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jansen, R. (1985). Sperm and ova as property. Journal of Medical Ethics, 11, 123–126.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lo, B., Chou, V., Cedars, M. I., et al. (2004). Informed consent in human oocyte, embryo, and embryonic stem cell research. Fertility and Sterility, 82(3), 559–563.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mackie, J. L. (1980). The cement of the universe: A study in causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Marquis, D. (1989). Why abortion is immoral. The Journal of Philosophy, 86, 183–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Masters, J. R. (2002). HeLa cells 50 years on: The good, the bad and the ugly. Nature Reviews, 2, 315–319.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. McCormick, R. A. (1981). How brave a new world? London: SCM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Medical Research Council. Code of practice for the use of human stem cell lines (Version 1 – April 2004) – Annex 2a – Donating embryos for stem cell research donor information and consent form. Available from: www.mrc.ac.uk/pdf-stem_cell_lines_code_draft-a2a.pdf (accessed 19.04.05).

  28. Moore v. The Regents of the University of California, 793, P.2d 479 (Cal 1990).

  29. Nagy, A., Rossant, J., Nagy, R., et al. (1993). Derivation of completely cell culture-derived mice from early passage embryonic stem cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 90, 8424–8428.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research involving human biological materials: Ethical issues and policy guidance (Volume I Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission). Rockville, Maryland: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; 1999.

  31. Office for the Protection from Research Risks. Issues to consider in the research use of stored data or tissues. November 7, 1997.

  32. Oviedo Convention of the Council of Europe (1997). (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).

  33. Radin, M. J. (1996). Contested commodities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ramsey, P. (1970). Fabricated man. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ramsey, P. (1978). Ethics at the edges of life. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. RAND. (2003). Case studies of existing human tissue repositories: “Best practices” for a biospecimen resource for the genomic and proteomic Era. Santa Monica, California: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Robertson, J. A. (1986). Embryos, families, and procreative liberty: The legal structure of the new reproduction. Southern California Law Review, 59, 939–1041.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Robertson, J. A. (1994). Children of choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Singer, P. (1979). Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Skloot, R. (2000). Henrietta's dance. Johns Hopkins Magazine, April 2000. Available from: http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0400web/01.html (accessed 19.04.05).

  41. Smith, V. (2002). Wonder woman: The life, death, and life after death of Henrietta Lacks, unwitting heroine of modern medical science. Baltimore City Paper, April 17.

  42. Stacey, G. N. (2000). Cell contamination leads to inaccurate data: We must take action now. Nature, 403(6768), 356.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Tanaka, M., Hadjantonakis, A. K., & Nagy, A. (2001). Aggregation chimeras. Combining ES cells, diploid and tetraploid embryos. Methods in Molecular Biology, 158, 135–154.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Testa, G., & Harris, J. (2004). Ethical aspects of ES Cell-derived gametes. Science, 305, 1719.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Testa, G., & Harris, J. (2005). Ethics and synthetic gametes. Bioethics, 19(2), 146–166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. The Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2004). Donating spare embryos for embryonic stem-cell research. Fertility and Sterility, 82(Suppl. 1), S224–S227.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Tooley, M. (1985). Abortion and infanticide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Warren, M. A. (1973). On the moral and legal status of abortion. The Monist, 57, 43–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Warren, M. A. (1997). Moral status: Obligations to persons and other living things. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

My thinking on these issues has been stimulated by participation in three research projects sponsored by the Commission of the European Union, DG-Research, EUROSTEM, EUROSTEMCELL, EURECA, and by coordinating a project entitled “Going to the roots of the stem cell controversy,” sponsored by The Research Council of Norway. The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily the views of any of the projects mentioned. The paper has been considerably improved due to helpful comments on previous versions of the manuscript from two anonymous reviewers and the issue guest editors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiff Law School, Museum Avenue, Cardiff, CF10 3XJ, South Wales, UK

    Søren Holm

  2. Section for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Fredrik Holsts Hus, Ullevål Terrasse, Pb. 1130 Blindern, N-0318, Oslo, Norway

    Søren Holm

Authors
  1. Søren Holm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Søren Holm.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holm, S. Who Should Control the Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines: A Defence of the Donors' Ability to Control. Bioethical Inquiry 3, 55–68 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-006-9004-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-006-9004-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation