We are still adding documentation to this page. Please refer to the History of The Cloning Rights Movement for the our full history.
Testimony of Randolfe H. Wicker to Congress, February, 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CLONING: LEGAL, MEDICAL, ETHICAL, AND SOCIAL ISSUESHEARINGBEFORE THESUBCOMMITTEE ONHEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTOF THECOMMITTEE ON COMMERCEHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ____________________ February 12, 1998 ____________________ Serial No. 105-70____________________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1998 46-728CC For sale by the U.S., Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 ISBN 0-16-056510-3 _________________________________________________________ The Chair would now recognize Mr. Wicker for up to 5 minutes of an opening statement STATEMENT OF RANDOLFE WICKER Mr. Wicker: Thank you very much. We especially appreciate the opportunity to be here today, because we represent a viewpoint that's rarely heard in chambers such as this. We have a basic approach to the whole issue, which we capsulized in something called the Clone Bill of Rights. Every person's DNA is his or her personal property. To have that DNA cloned into another extended life is art and parcel of his or her right to control his or her own reproduction. Constitutionally, that right is assigned to neither State legislators, to the Federal Government, nor to religious authorities. It is reserved to each and every citizen to decide if, how, and when to reproduce. And finally, research, not rhetoric, and/or freedom limiting legal restrictions is the only way to discover the real effects of cloning. Restrictions on research into cloning of humans should not even be considered; unless real social harm can be demonstrated. With that being said, I would like to emphasize that we oppose both bills pending. When made to choose between the two, some of the literature I've supplied you with today, has us supporting the Feinstein bill, because we feel that's much less destructive to scientific research. But from our point of view, it's like choosing—not just two evils—I can either choose death by lethal injection a la Feinstein, or death by fire with the First bill. I think that it's very important that the people understand that human cloning technology will eliminate all human infertility. Government interference in this area is blatantly immoral, unconstitutional. To deny an infertile couple of access to a reproductive method is equivalent to forcible sterilization by the State. I will refer you to "Human Cloning: Infertility and Reproductive Freedom", which I've submitted as part of my testimony, by Mark Eibert, an attorney in California, who's a legal representative of infertile couples, and who intends to challenge the law there, that was recently passed. I think that people are not aware—certainly, I became aware after becoming involved in this issue—of the circumstances about infertility clinics. It cost $20,000 to try once. You have about 19.6 percent chance. After five tries, after spending $100,000 the rate of success rarely goes over 46 percent. That means today, couples can still spend $100,000 at a reputable good clinic, and still have less than a 50/50 chance of success. Fertility doctors are the highest paid doctors of all. Some feel within our group, that they are opposed to cloning, not only for ethical reasons, but also for economical reasons, because once cloning technology is perfected, there will no longer be 5, 6, 10 tries at $20,000 and maybe even $30,000 a try. The only credible argument that's come up, which I have found against cloning, is the danger. And yet, with IVF and their fertility drugs are legal, although they create higher risk of miscarriage, multiple births, and associated birth defects, the decision regarding risk is left to the patient. In effect, outlawing cloning denies Scientists their freedom of inquiry, as well as denying patients their freedom to decide how much risk they're willing to take. Nobel laureates have all recommended that you people have the FDA regulate this. I think that's a very good idea. I mean, these are Nobel laureates. I say let the scientists run science, and let the theologians run the churches. Second, the religiously based restrictions, which seems to be something that's very much brought up constantly, is this religion, produced by various people on human cloning—have no place in the law. They violate religious freedom. Those who believe cloning offers a partial temporary immortality, have the right to secure an extended life for their own genotype. I might say however, that this is a matter of debate, even with our own membership. Some feel the term is an oxymoron, and one's later born twin would probably choose to reproduce the old-fashioned way anyway, so therefore the lifetime of one's genotype would only be extended for one lifetime more. However, human cloning does change at least, slightly, the traditionally clear line between life and death. If even after death, a later born identical twin can be born, carrying the originator's genotype into another life, doesn't that somehow deny death as traditional totality? Already, a Montreal-based group, the Raelians—which who I have no association whatsoever, I might say—are virtually preaching eternal or extended life through cloning. They offer to clone you for $200,000 at their Bahamas facility, which we had found out doesn't really exist.
Mr. Burr: Mr. Wicker—
Mr. Wicker: In the years ahead, religious beliefs such as these are likely to proliferate. You may believe that this appeal will be very limited. The public is opposed to human cloning. We all know that; 75 to 90 percent are opposed.
Mr. Burr: Mrs. Wicker, I would ask you to summarize as quickly as you can.
Mr. Wicker: Okay. Well, anyway, just like I said, when we went to Central Park and gave out clone—*badges, 75 to 90 percent of the people accepted those badges. And finally—like the last thing is, outlawing human cloning technology will only relegate it to second-rate facilities. These reckless, irresponsible adventurers like Richard Seed, may well cause deformity and human suffering. The world's most famous child, the first human being conceived though cloning, will soon be born. We all should do everything possible to see that the child is born normally, healthily, and under the best circumstances. Thank You.
Mr. Burr: Is there any anybody at the table that believes that the Dolly experiment has been replicated, or has any knowledge of it?
Mr. Wicker: There’s a New York Times report that the cow— supposedly a cow that was done in that fashion is soon to be born. At least its pregnancy is underway in that regard, I believe. The calves that were born were done with the fetal cells, but there’s supposed to be a calve soon to be born which will replete the Dolly experiment, as I recall reading.
Mr. Burr: Thank you.r. W
___________________________________________
Testimony of Randolfe H. Wicker to Congress, February, 1998
icker. |
|
Cloning: Legal, Medical, Ethical, and Social Issues: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce House of Representatives A copy of the transcript of Randolfe H. Wicker's testimony before the United States Congress regarding the issue of cloning.
The following declaration is with permission from
Free
Inquiry magazine, Volume 17, Number 3
Declaration in Defense of Cloning and the Integrity of Scientific Research
Please return to Clone Rights United Front index Back to Top or visit our sister sites The Reproductive Cloning Network at http://www.reproductivecloning.net or The Human Cloning Foundation's Home Page at: http://www.humancloning.org