Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on April 7, 2004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/5/1060    most recent
deh142v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pennings, G.
Right arrow Articles by Van Steirteghem, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pennings, G.
Right arrow Articles by Van Steirteghem, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 19, No. 5, 1060-1064, May 2004
© 2004 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

The subsidiarity principle in the context of embryonic stem cell research

Guido Pennings1,3 and André Van Steirteghem2

1 Centre for Environmental Philosophy and Bioethics, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000 Ghent and 2 Centre for Reproductive Medicine and Research Centre Reproduction and Genetics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, B-1090 Brussels, Belgium

3 To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: Guido.Pennings{at}Ugent.be

Embryonic stem cell research is regulated by different forms of the subsidiarity principle, i.e. research on embryos should only be conducted if no suitable alternatives exist. Four types are discussed: animal versus human material, adult versus embryonic stem cells, affected or at risk embryos versus healthy embryos, and supernumerary versus research embryos. Three major arguments regarding the subsidiarity principle are discussed: the necessity argument, the least offensive moral approach and the ‘nothing is lost’ argument. It is proposed that the burden of proof should be shifted onto those who oppose embryonic research. When the freedom of research and the moral obligation to relieve human suffering is taken seriously, the opponents of this research should first demonstrate that embryonic stem cells do not work or that adult stem cells work better.

Key words: embryo/ethics/research/stem cells/subsidiarity


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Med. EthicsHome page
J R Meyer
The significance of induced pluripotent stem cells for basic research and clinical therapy
J. Med. Ethics, December 1, 2008; 34(12): 849 - 851.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
H. Mertes, G. Pennings, and A. Van Steirteghem
An ethical analysis of alternative methods to obtain pluripotent stem cells without destroying embryos
Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2006; 21(11): 2749 - 2755.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
R. M. Isasi and B. M. Knoppers
Beyond the permissibility of embryonic and stem cell research: substantive requirements and procedural safeguards
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2006; 21(10): 2474 - 2481.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.