Personalistic Bioethics: The Dignity of the Human
Embryo from the Moment of Fertilization
This article is a revision of a public lecture
hosted by this Institute on 1 December 2006.

Etsuko Akiba

At the Root of the European Argument
Relating to Human LifeTODAY I would like to provide a brief explanation of “The Catholic
Bioethics Regarding the Scientific Use of Human Embryos.”As was just explained in the kind introduction I received (from the
Director of the Institute of Oriental Philosophy), I had the good fortunate of being able to publish a volume entitled “The Bioethics of theCatholic Church and the Pontifical Academy for Life: The Dignity of the
Human Embryo” (Chisen Shokan) in December of 2005, which included both translations and an introduction to the key issues. There were anumber of reasons why this publication is particularly meaningful at thistime. While, currently in Japan, regulations regarding cloning technology prohibiting the cloning of human beings for the purpose of reproduction have been enacted, policies promoting experiments on early humanembryos have been developed. However, when we reflect on the international situation, it becomes apparent that many countries have adopted apolicy different from ours. I published the book because the Catholic
Church has been exerting a significant influence on the international
scene regarding bioethics.
Though my own research area is criminal law, I inevitably encounter
ethical issues when investigating issues related to human life, like aseuthanasia, abortion, brain death and organ transplantation from a legal
perspective. As I investigate the ethical issues in greater detail, I am
prompted to notice that at the very root of these issues is Catholic ethics,
since the present Japanese Criminal Code, which was established in
1907, is modeled after Prussian Criminal Code. While the origins ofEuropean ethics can be traced back to the Greek and Roman philosophy
that preceded Christianity, certainly that which provides the systematic
foundation for contemporary European ethics is Catholic ethics. Thus,
81

82

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

when we investigate the arguments being put forth in Europe, what we
inevitably encounter is traditional Catholic ethics. The university where
I did my studies is a Catholic institution, and which has a great deal ofliterature on these issues. As I began to review that literature thoroughly
and in detail, I found myself immersed in the issues and before I knew itbioethics had become my area of specialization. For the past two years, I
have been allowed to participate in the annual assembly of the PontificalAcademy for Life as a corresponding member. It became apparent to me
that the official position of the Catholic bioethics relating to the humanembryo was not being accurately informed in Japan. This too became
one of the motivating factors in the publishing of my book.
Therefore, I speak to you today not as a scholar of criminal law, but
as someone wishing to explain with some clarity the most important
aspects of the official Catholic bioethics.
Today’s title of my talk is “The Catholic Bioethics Regarding the Scientific Use of Early Human Embryos”—this “Catholic Bioethics” canbe rephrased as “Personalistic Bioethics.” And the subtitle is “The Protection of the Fundamental Rights and Dignity of the Human Embryo
from the Beginning.” This is an extremely clear assertion of Catholic
bioethics. I would like to address these issues in the following order.
First I would like to speak about the current state of affairs in Japan,
as well as the international situation. Next I would like to explain thestanding position of Catholic bioethics. Lastly, I would like to speculate
about what roles should be played by religious people. Since theCatholic Church is also making various appeals regarding these issues toall the religious people, I would like to conclude with the message fromthe Catholic Church.

Japan: Human Cloning is Permitted
for Scientific Research Purposes
Let me begin with discussing the regulations related to embryonic
research in Japan. First of all, these regulations are addressed to“cloning for reproductive purposes.” That is, the research that seeks to
produce a cloned human being. If a cloned human embryo, that is, thevery beginning of a cloned human being, were produced and transferred
into a woman’s uterus, a cloned baby would be born. This, however, is“prohibited” under the “Law concerning regulation of human cloning
and other similar techniques” (hereinafter “the Human Cloning Regulation Law”) as stated above. If a violation occurs, the punishment issevere; it may be up to ten years of imprisonment, and/or a fine of up toPERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

83

10 million Japanese yen.
Secondly, there is the matter of the “Use (Destruction) of Surplus
Embryos up to the 14th day after fertilization” for the purpose of producing embryonic stem cells (ES Cells). This practice is permitted.
What is being referred to here? I imagine that you have heard of ES
cells. ES cells are obtained when some cells are removed from a part ofa human embryo at around 5–6 days post-fertilization and then cultivated. They are also referred to as master cells or pluripolent cells, and areused to obtain cells for various tissues and organs of the body, such as
the heart and nervous system. Surplus embryos are those embryos left
over and then frozen after having been fertilized in vitro for the assisted
reproductive technology. The Human Cloning Regulation Law does notprohibit the use of these surplus embryos to obtain ES cells.
Is it acceptable to destroy the human embryo in order to produce an
ES cell? Some time was needed before this could be approved in Japan.
First of all, in 1997, the Council of Science and Technology for the Promotion of Biotechnology was established as an advisory body to theprime minister, which appointed a Bioethics Committee. In 1999, theCommittee published a report on cloning and, based on the report, the“Human Cloning Regulation Law” was then established. On the other
hand, the Bioethics Committee published the other report in 2000 thatapproved of the production of ES cells. Shortly afterward, Professor
Norio Nakatsuji of Kyoto University succeeded in producing ES cells
from surplus human embryos.
Thirdly, there is the issue of producing human cloned embryos for the
purpose of obtaining ES cells. This is referred to as “cloning for scientific research purposes (research cloning),” and I believe it is importantfor us to be careful not to confuse this with “cloning for reproductive
purposes (reproductive cloning),” which was the first category I mentioned.
In the case of research cloning, initially the same method is used as
for reproductive cloning. First a cloned embryo is produced, but in thiscase not transferred to the uterus. Then the embryo is developed to thefifth or sixth day, and one portion (the inner cell mass) is extracted.
From there the ES cell is produced. With this method, it is possible toproduce cells that are superior to those made from surplus embryos. In
what way are these cells superior? For example, imagine that I haveproblems with my heart. If doctors wanted to reproduce a blood vesselof my heart from ES cells, a vessel with far fewer adverse reactions
would be produced when he used as raw material a cloned embryo
derived from my own somatic cells rather than a surplus embryo origi-

84

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

nated from the other persons.
In July of 2004, the final report of the Council of Science and Technology for the Promotion of Biotechnology was issued and approval
was given for research cloning. Furthermore, in July of this year (2006)
the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
appointed an ad hoc committee and began preparing concrete guidelines
for research cloning. That “Interim Report” is now completed andpreparation for implementation is currently underway. However, inAugust, it was reported in the newspaper that Professor Nakatsuji would
not intend to become involved with this research. Later I will return tothis issue and provide further explanation.
For the preparation of human ES cells, it is only permitted to use surplus embryos up until the 14th day. These are the embryos that are
produced for assisted reproductive technologies and left over after thetreatment. Presently in Japan, it is reported that approximately 5,000
frozen embryos are no longer needed for the reproduction and are being
disposed of because they have exceeded their storage life. However,whenever possible, there is the desire to use embryos in good condition
as opposed to surplus embryos and fresh embryos as opposed to frozen
ones. The question that arises then is: for scientific research, is it acceptable to produce human embryos in vitro and then destroy them? The
report that came out this July also grants permission for this.
Thus, the current policy in Japan is that “it is not permissible to produce cloned babies,” but, “it is acceptable to use embryos as experimental material up to the 14th day, whether they be embryos fertilized invitro or cloned embryos.” While I’d like to say clearly that my goal here
today is not to critique the current policy in Japan, it is important to saythat the current situation does bear within it a number of contradictions.
The first problem is that there is in fact no agreement among scholarsof criminal law as to why human reproductive cloning is illegal and whysuch heavy penalties are imposed. There is certainly a great deal of dispute. While it seems to be obvious to everyone why generating cloned
offspring is not permitted, we must acknowledge the fact that it is permissible to produce and freely dispose of cloned embryos. In light of
this, it is logically inconsistent to impose such severe punishments only
when cloned offspring are generated.
The first article of the Human Cloning Regulation Law offers the protect of the “dignity of the person” as one of its purposes. Here the wording is the “dignity of the person”—not the “dignity of the human being.”
This law is the first established within the Japanese legal system theexpression the “dignity of the person,” and the main point of my talk

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

85

today could also be thought of as clarify what the “dignity of the person” actually means.
According to the report issued by the Bioethics Committee, which
served as the foundation of the Human Cloning Regulation Law, themeaning of “person” in the expression the “dignity of the person” isunderstood simply as the “person after birth.” Therefore, according tothis report, a “person” does not exist from that point in time when acloned embryo was produced. What then is the “dignity of the person
after birth,” which is being protected by the Law? It has been explained
as the “dignity of the person copied.” For example, if I cloned myself,that would mean that my dignity would be violated. Why is that? It isbecause the making of a copy of myself is the making of a copy of me,
who is the only person in possession of my identity. Therefore it is an
infringement on my identity. However, this argument has been criticizedby many bioethicists. Even though people have the same genes, they do
not necessarily have the same identity or personality and, as a result,
there has been no violation of the rights and dignity of the person
copied. This argument has been viewed as unsound by many.
Another form of criticism is also heard. It is that, though a humanclone must not be produced for the purpose of reproduction, one mustalso take into account matters of individual freedom, autonomy, andreproductive rights. Nowadays progress has been made in the treatment
of infertility and various methods based on this progress are available
for producing a child. Then, why those unable to conceive through theusual means cannot produce their child through cloning? In the U.S., theright of homosexual couples to marry is recognized. And this is not only
the case in the U.S. but also in Europe, in such liberal nations as the
Netherlands. In view of this situation, some have questioned why suchcouples could not produce a child through cloning. This argument may
seem unreasonable to some when put forth from the position of the“right to reproduct a child.”
By contrast, to show our conclusion beforehand, we could say thatanyone has the “right to be born by parents” when we consider therights or the dignity of the cloned child. This is the position of theCatholic Church. Also a famous philosopher Hans Jonas has written thathuman cloning is part of the eugenics project and is the most slavish
form of genetic manipulation. We ourselves are generated by thegametes of our father and mother, but our growth is controlled by ourown genes. In the case of the cloned baby, the genes are programmed
from the start by a third party and given to him or her. That is, from thevery beginning, a child is born as a result of the genetic manipulation

86

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

having been done on it. There is no other person who has been born inthis manner. While we do not fully understand the mechanism thatallows us to inherit certain genes from our father or mother, we might
think that, in a sense, we ourselves chose autonomously to be born. At
least, it was not the result of a choice made arbitrarily by a third party.
However, from the onset, a cloned baby is born as a result of having had
its genes imposed upon it by some other person. Hans Jonas asserts thatoriginally we all possess the right to be born freely by our fathers andmothers. Moreover he states that the human cloning project belongs
from its inception to the field of eugenics, in which certain genes are
imposed upon people.
If we reflect on the rights of a cloned human being, we would reachthe conclusion that both cloning for research purposes and reproductive
purposes should be prohibited. In the case of research cloning, thecloned human embryo that was produced is then killed in order to do theresearch. It must be considered more inhumane than reproductive
cloning.
In Japan, policies have been put in place that promote researchcloning. Yet, if we consider the issue from the position stated above,“prohibiting only reproductive cloning” would not be a consistent andcoherent policy. If we consider the rights and dignity of the baby who isborn as a clone, we would have to conclude that, “research cloning mustalso be prohibited.”
The current state of affairs in Japan is one in which policies containing this contradiction continue to be promoted. Let me illustrate what I
have just explained.
As I explained previously, the Bioethics Committee appointed by theCouncil of Science and Technology for the Promotion of Biotechnology
was established as an advisory body to the prime minister and is currently part of the Cabinet Office. In July of 2004, it issued a report, according to which an early embryo up to the 14th day is not considered a“person.” However, unlike some type of human cell, it is thought of as“a bud of human life” and as an existence especially worthy of respect.
The “bud of human life” is a new way of referring to the human embryo.
In short, an early embryo is not a “person.” Both ethically and legally,
it is neither a “person” nor a “thing.” One interpretation has attributed toit the position of an “intermediary form between a person and a thing.”
Japanese law developed in succession to Continental law, which grewout of Roman law, and in Continental law a dichotomy is utilized that
separates persons from things. While there certainly are people who
would question whether a pet should be considered a “thing,” within the

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS87

law a pet is treated as a thing. While some may feel that is not good, thefact of the matter is that only human beings have dignity and rights, andthey also have responsibility, duty and even tax liabilities. Under Continental law, a dichotomy exists between “persons” and “things,” and thishas gone unchanged from the time of Roman law. Therefore, with thisissue of early stage embryos, we see that something, which in a sense
destroys this dichotomy has been produced.
Actually, this is not the first time that an argument of this sort has
emerged. I believe that all of you will recall the great ethical argumentsthat surrounded the issue of organ transplantations from those who arebrain dead. There were heated arguments about whether brain death
constituted the death of the person, and, at that time, there were people
who put forth the same argument being heard now. Professor Koichi
Bai, the noted scholar of medical law, has stated that we should create
an “alpha period,” and that brain death is this alpha period in which theperson is neither living nor dead. Once the person has completely died,the body becomes a corpse and is then treated as an “object.” When living, the body is a “person.” However, brain death is an intermediary
form between that of a person and an object. Even today in Japan weremain in a state in which a social consensus has not yet been reachedabout whether brain death constitutes the death of the person. Thus, thealpha period theory did bring together a large number of supporters.
Nevertheless, after a time, Professor Bai withdrew his own backing of
the theory.
Why then did he withdraw his backing? Once we consider the situation carefully, we can see that all the alpha period theory does is set up
one more boundary line. With that, it establishes a gray zone and this
only further complicates the argument. After all brain death should only
be treated as either life or death, and so Professor Bai withdrew hisalpha period theory. As a result, an intermediary form between that ofperson and an object, a third category was not established in that case.
However, the law for this case did establish a third category. If the third
category were established, there would certainly be a push to reexamine
the entire system of Japanese law, including the civil code and criminal
code. Therefore, hereafter, we can expect a great deal of confusion in
our law on various fronts.

United Nations: “Blanket Ban on Human Cloning”
Even for Research Purposes
What is the state of affairs at the international level? That which kicked

88

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

off the current dispute was a report on the 1997 birth in Scotland on
Dolly, the “Cloned Sheep.” The European Parliament quickly issued aresolution that all human cloning, regardless of its purpose, was prohibited. Yet, in 1998, just the following year, the issue of ES cells emerged
again, and as it became publicly talked that “when ES cells could be
produced from one’s own cloned embryo, it might be possible to produce ES cells with little likelihood of rejection to him or her,” the arguments against human cloning toned down. In 1998, Council of Europe
issued an additional protocol to the Convention on Human Rights andBiomedicine, and in it reproductive cloning was the only type prohibited. That is to say, what we see here is a desire to open up a path for producing ES cells. After this, the world has been divided on this issue.
Meanwhile, Declaration on Human Cloning was issued by the United
Nations in March of 2005. This Declaration announced a blanket ban on
human cloning, including research cloning. This conclusion was reachedafter much complications. The U.N. deliberations on human cloning
began in 2001. Germany and France took the initiative, and the initialdeliberations focused on establishing a Convention for banning only
reproductive cloning. However, the appeal that “both types of humancloning should be banned” emerged, the Catholic Church might take theinitiative in this appeal, which further complicated the deliberations. The
U.N. sessions were extended many times over, but could not complete a
Convention. At last, “Declaration” was issued. Though it does not havebinding power, it calls for a complete ban on human cloning.
Italy and Germany voted in favor of the U.N. Declaration, and fromthe beginning they took a conservative stance. The U.S. also provided
support. According to Japanese newspaper, Pope John Paul II and President Bush held talks about this problem. Such talks might have been
prompted by the Bush Administration with its conservative Christianbent.
Britain, which voted in opposition, was the country that produced
Dolly, the cloned sheep. As the country with the most advanced technology on human embryonic research, the reasons for its opposition should
be clear. France also voted in opposition. Unlike Germany, France was
victorious in the WWII. As I will explain later, this historical fact resulted in the tendency that the French do not reject the eugenics as earnestly
as the German do. Japan took a stance that supported the advancementof experimental research and of course voted in opposition. South Korea
took the same position as Japan.
However, by an overwhelming majority, the Declaration that banned
all types of human cloning was adopted (84 in support, 34 in opposition,PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

89

37 abstaining).
Let me briefly show the situation in the United States. In fact, “humandignity” is not a familiar concept to Americans. Western law can beroughly divided into Anglo-American law and Continental law. The system of law in the European continental countries and one in Britain and
U.S are completely different. Incidentally, the Japanese system of law
was established during the Meiji era and was modeled after the German
or French system of law. However, after WWII, aspects of the U.S. system of law were incorporated, making for a Japanese system of law that
had a mixture of influences. Nonetheless, the Japanese system of law
has its foundation in the system of Continental Law. And human dignity
is the highest principle in the Continental Law.
By contrast, the most important principles in the U.S. law are “individual freedom” and the “individual pursuit of happiness.” These aretaken to be something very close to absolute principles. Conversely, in
Europe these principles are not given a great deal of weight, and, as aresult, we can see here a fundamental difference between the two. The
concept of the “individual” employed in this case is that of an individual
who bears consciousness and is capable of making decisions by him or
herself. When such an individual is viewed as an absolute, prohibiting
human cloning becomes difficult. The unborn cloned embryo could not
be referred to as an “individual” and thus there should be no need toprotect his or her rights. Moreover, ideas that would restrict the pursuitof happiness and individual freedom, that might, for example, restrict
the advancement of scientific research or the reproduction of one’s own
cloned child, rarely emerge. Therefore, while in the U.S., National
Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) was set up and issued reports,in the end good grounds for prohibiting reproductive human cloning
could not be found. The report of NBAC was the source of a great dealof concern and the word “prohibit” could not be clearly stated. Nonetheless, the U.S. came around to supporting the U.N. Declaration.
From early on, Germany took the position of protecting the rights of
the human embryo, and in 1990 it established the Human Embryo Protection Law, which upheld the “human rights of the human embryo.”
In Italy, the Medically Assisted Procreation Law was established in
2004 which also protected the rights of the human embryo from the earliest stages. The Italian law is quite strict as follows. First, it is very hardon the woman to extract ova one by one time and time again for the
reproductive practice. Therefore through the process of the ovarian stimulation, which allows the extraction of ten ova or as at one time, rather
than the natural one ovum per month. All ova are then fertilized in vitro

90

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

with the aim of obtaining as many embryos as possible. The most efficient practice to cause pregnancy is said to be the transfer of approximately three fertilized ova to the uterus and keep the rest frozen.
However, this practice results surplus embryos. These surplus embryos
are also human beings and thus their human rights should be protected.
Therefore the new Italian law seeks to avoid producing surplus embryos
as much as possible. The German law also has done this. From the start,
Italian law says that only embryos for one-time implantation should be
produced.
Criticisms have also been launched against this approach. They statethat if assisted reproductive techniques are conducted in accordancewith this law, effective infertility treatments will no longer be possible.
They claim the “rights of child-bearing.” In spite of that, when we consider protecting the “human rights of the unborn child from the beginning,” we cannot help but provide some regulations for that. Thus, not in
only Italy, but in many European countries, such regulations haverecently been introduced into the physician’s deontological code.
To sum up, in Europe, in favor of the rights of the child, people seethat there is no way to a surrogate mother nor gametes donors. Furthermore a great deal of thought is going into methods that will not produce
surplus embryos which could be used for experimental purposes. In
Japan, there has been the tendency to permit not only the use of the surplus embryos, but also the intentional production of embryos by meansof in vitro fertilization for the experimental use. It seems to me that wewould do well to take note of how much Japanese approach contrasts
with that of European nations.

The Catholic Church: “Human Dignity Extends
to the Human Embryo”
Thus far we have worked to understand roughly the overall situation in
the world. Now I would like to move to the Catholic perspective. The
Catholic Church has adopted the stance that every person is endowedwith dignity from conception and that his or her human rights are to berecognized. It has supported the “dignity and human rights of the earlystage embryo,” and put this forth repeatedly as its public stance sinceover 30 years ago.
In 1974, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith issued the Declaration on Procured Abortion. This Declaration clearly states that the lifeof a new human being is begun from the time that the ovum is fertilized,
and that his or her dignity and rights must be recognized from that time.

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS91

In 1987, the same Congregation issued a statement entitled Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation (“Donum Vitae”). Why was this document issued in 1987?
In 1978, Louise Brown, the world’s first baby conceived through in vitro
fertilization, was born in England. Many of you may recall the expression “test-tube baby,” which was used at that time. This may have beenvery good news for those people concerned about infertility, but the
Catholic Church discerned the dangerous aspects to this procedure.
What then is dangerous about this procedure? Normally an embryo
can not exist outside of the mother’s body. It is generated within the
body of a mother and is not supposed to come out of the womb prior tobirth. What is viewed as dangerous then is the fact that the beginning oflife takes place in vitro. In a word, it is not protected by the body of amother. Anyone can easily approach it. It can be thrown away. It can beused for some experiments. There are many ways in which it can be violated or interfered with. Furthermore, through the process of ovarian
stimulation, a large number of embryos can be produced at one time. It
has been noted that in vitro fertilization could lead to producing a large
number of human beings who are not protected by the mother’s bodyand who could be exposed to a variety of threats and dangers. It wastherefore after expecting the possibility of future dangers, some ofwhich have already transpired, that this document was issued as a warning in 1987. One of the expected dangers, which has become a reality,
grows out of the simple fact that a large number of surplus embryos arefrozen. That is, this situation means that many human beings in earlystages who are destinated for the death before birth are frozen andstored in a refrigerator somewhere. It may be something of an exaggeration to express the situation in this way, but what one might say thatwhat is occurring here is a large-scale infringement upon human rights.
Thus came the warning of 1987, which asserts that we must respect“human life at its origin.”
Another assertion is that of the “dignity of human procreation.” In
Catholic bioethics, this is a common expression, but I imagine there arepeople here who are hearing it for the first time. The procreation ofhuman beings is different from the reproduction of animals. We see theother dimension on human generation. Human beings are born fromtheir parents as the fruit of their love. While human generation is also
possible without the presence of a husband and wife when we obtain asperm and ovum and resort to the reproductive technology, there is certainly no one who would want to be born in that way. We wish to bornas the fruit of our parents’ love. It was “Donum Vitae” of 1987 that

92

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

emphasized this dimension of being and warned against its disregard.
The point is that even at the time of “Donum Vitae” the assertion that“the embryo is a person from the time of fertilization” had already beenmade. In 1995, Pope John Paul II issued an encyclical letter entitled“Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life).” An encyclical letter is a letterfrom the Pope addressed directly to the believers. Pope John Paul II
issued this letter, not only to the followers of the Catholic faith, but to“all people of good will who are concerned for the good of every man
and woman and for the destiny of the whole of society.” Pope John PaulII points out in this letter that now a “culture of death” is prevailing. He
states that whether we look at the problem of euthanasia, the problem ofbrain death and organ transplantation, or the issues related to the experiments that destroy surplus human embryos, we see the prevalence of a“culture of death.” The fact that there is a high rate of suicide and abortion in Japan may also be seen as a sign of this “culture of death.” John
Paul II issued this encyclical letter, putting forth the position that we arein a state of crisis in which we must establish a new “culture of life.”
This encyclical letter which is rather long includes proposals based on
the newest data from the life sciences.
In 1994, the year prior to issuing this encyclical letter, Pope John PaulII established the Pontifical Academy for Life in order to construct a
new “culture of life.” The Catholic Church had already established thePontifical Academy of Science in 1603. Around half of the members of
this Academy are winners of the Nobel Prize. Authorities in the naturalsciences being invited to the Academy engage in open and free discussions. The Academy does not force any particular conclusion on the discussion, but encourages the scholars to discuss freely. Consequently the
Academy is able to collect the most recent scientific data and tries tofind the correct way based on scientific truth.
Pope John Paul II established the new Academy for Life in 1994 sothat it might deal with the new situations in which the lives of people arebeing interfered with by developments in science and technology. Morethan half of the members of the Academy are medical professionals
such as human geneticists, obstetricians and gynecologists. In general,
the others are specialists in theology and ethics, and few legal scholars
like myself. Not a few aspects of the arguments among the specialists inthe natural sciences are hard for me to understand. The newest data from
biology also is reported on. This fact shows that the fundamental task
for the Academy is to consider what is ethically and legally correct
based on an accurate assessment of the scientific facts.
In 1997, the Academy for Life issued a paper entitled “Reflections on

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

93

Cloning.” This paper came out directly after Dolly, the cloned sheep,
was born. An eminently clear explanation is given as to why humancloning cannot be permitted. The reason is to be found in the violationof the human rights of the clone produced through cloning technology.
All people have the right to be generated by two parents of the opposite
sex and the right to have a family, as well as relatives. For example,
Dolly is the twin younger sister of her mother, and she has no biologicalfather. However, her maternal grandfather holds the same position as her
father would. In short, her relationship with family members and relatives is completely distorted. Offspring produced through cloning haveno parents from the very start and they have no relatives on the paternalside. Under such conditions, is it possible for a child’s personality todevelop properly? A human being is surrounded by relatives and family
members, and he or she has the right to be born and raise in such anenvironment. “Reflections on Cloning” provides a clear analysis andconcludes that human cloning is wrong because it infringes upon thatright of the clone. This Reflections is divided into three parts. The first is
the scientific and biological reflections on cloning technology. The second is an ethical reflection based on the scientific facts, and the third is
the legal reflection based on the scientific and ethical reflections.
In 2000, the Pontifical Academy for Life issued the “Declaration on
the Production and the Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human
Embryonic Stem Cells.” In those days a vigorous discussion was underway in the world as to the “biological beginning of a human life”. Was itat the time of fertilization or from the 14th day? In Britain, experimental
research on the human embryo obtained through in vitro fertilization up
to the 14th day after fertilization was permitted for the first time in theworld. In light of this, the Academy for Life began to place its greatest
efforts into clarifying the mechanism that initiates the biological beginning of a human life. It began to collect the most recent scientific data,
and, after investigating and analyzing it in detail, sought to interpret it inmanner that could be more easily understood by the general population.
It was the reading of this Declaration that prompted me to begin myown study on the “dignity of the human embryo.” Though I thought theargument on the “biological beginning of human life” should inevitably
be based on the ethical consideration of human embryonic research, inJapan, that argument was nowhere to be seen. This Declaration offered
clear scientific data amidst the entangled public debate that was taking
place at that time. In publishing this book (The Bioethics of the Catholic
Church and the Pontifical Academy for Life), my hope, above all else,
was to assist the Japanese people in understanding the most recent sci-

94

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

entific truth regarding this issue.
The paper entitled “The Prohibition of Cloning Within International
Debate” issued by the Academy for Life in 2003 also discussed the scientific, ethical, and legal aspects of the issue in that order, and it wasissued at the very same time that the United Nations deliberations were
underway. The Academy intended to send a clear message to those participating in the U.N. deliberations.
Furthermore, in 2004, the Vatican Secretary of State built upon theargument set forth in the Academy’s paper and issued a document
regarding the U.N.’s international deliberations on prohibiting humancloning. This was a position paper expressing the official position of theCatholic Church in response to the U.N.
In addition, the theme of the annual assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life held in February of this year, 2006, was “The Human
Embryo in Its Pre-Implantation Phase: Scientific Aspects and Bioethical
Considerations.” In the previous year the prohibition declaration onhuman cloning had been issued at the United Nations. The Academy
might choose this theme for the annual assembly to send a message tothe countries that were still intending to promote experiments on humanembryos. In the conclusion of the Assembly, scientific observations
were offered based on the most recent data, along with ethical and legal
considerations based on that data. In short, what was offered here wasan update of the information provided in the previous documents. I hopethat you understand the Catholic Church has been devoted to the protection of the dignity and the rights of the human embryo.
Now I have showed you many Catholic documents, but, as we cansee, the Catholic bioethics offers a very simple message. 1) First of all,the scientific truth should be accurately understood, which leads to thefact that “human life begins at the moment of fertilization.” This is not
simply a position that is being asserted by the Catholic Church, but thebiological and embryological data examined objectively. What the
Catholic Church has done is simply confirm and accept the accuracy ofthis data.
Over and above that, 2) the Catholic bioethics is seeking to protect the
principle of international law and bioethics. That is to say that the
Catholic Church is seeking to review the scientific and biological facts
and, based on those, trying to reflect on the ethical and legal implications of those facts. The vital point to the latter is that “for all people
without exception, the fundamental human rights and human dignity
should be recognized.” This is supreme principle of international law
and bioethics after WWII.

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

95

In light of this, the conclusion that “human rights and human dignity
should be protected from the moment of fertilization” will be leaded
from points 1) and 2). Therefore, Catholic bioethics or the personalistic
bioethics just recognize in a sense the commonly accepted scientificfacts of today and, based on that, promote the international principle oflaw and ethics. We could also say that this position is simply a reconfirmation of an established position. However, this does reflect the
Catholic view on the matter.
The problem here is that in Japan the concept of “human dignity” isvery confused. It overlaps and is mixed up with various other concepts,
such as the “respect for human individuals” and “respect for life.” Consequently it is difficult to understand what it means in concrete terms.
Earlier I mentioned that the Human Cloning Regulation Law introduced
the expression of “the dignity of the person.” However, even then, theexpression used quite purposefully was “the dignity of the person,” andnot “human dignity.” The usage that was employed recognized only the
dignity of the “person” after being born. The current state seems to be
one in which the concept of human dignity is very much influx. This
results in a variety of problems and a range of arguments. The conceptof “human dignity” in international law is grounded in a perspective thatsees all human beings as members of the human family, being equal indignity and rights, and of existential value. The mere fact of being in thepresence of a human being necessitates that it be shown the full respectof its dignity. Human dignity is not dependent on a person’s ability or
status; it is inherent to his or her own existence, in and of itself. This is
the Catholic position and is also the position adopted within post-war
international law.
In the explanation that follows, I would like to look at this issue indetail.

Scientific Truth: A Human Embryo is a Human Beingfrom the Moment of Fertilization
Thus far we have seen that the Catholic stance is to “acknowledge thescientific facts and promote the principles of international law andbioethics.” Regarding this, Pope John Paul II offered the following
description in his “The Gospel of Life.” “From the time that the ovum is
fertilized a life is begun which ... is the life of a new human being withhis own growth. This has always been clear, and ... modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first
instant there is established the programme of what this living being will

96

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects
already well determined” (n° 60). That is, the fact that a person’s life
begins at the time of fertilization is not something that Pope John Paul II
decided, nor is it simply a theological doctrine or an ethical interpretation. It is the position taken from modern genetic science. Therefore, if
we were to word this differently, we could say that if modern genetics
had asserted that “the human life does not begin at the time of fertilization,” then the position of the Pope would also be different. This goes
without saying. What we must acknowledge here is that the Pope is honestly incorporating the scientific truth into his position.
But the following sentences placed in the same paragraph of the“Gospel of Life” are directed toward ethical considerations, being notable to be proven based on the empirical sciences.
The human being is a “totality and unity as body and spirit,” an integration of these two, and thus in an early stage embryo, in which a newexistence begins physically, it is thought that the spiritual soul is alreadypresent. Consequently, “the human being is to be respected and treatedas a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from thesame moment his rights as a person must be recognized.”
What is the spiritual soul? In Christian thought, the spirit is present
within the living person. The body and spirit are not separated in him or
her. They do not exist separately; both exist together. The reason why
the human being is ethically treated as a person and is legally endowedwith human rights is because of the presence of the spiritual soul within
the human being. This is part of Catholic thought, and there may be
aspects of it that is difficult to be explained rationally. Anyway, in
Catholic Thought, since the body and spirit cannot be separated in a living human being, there is no possibility of respecting only the spirit andnot the body. Yet, what substantially characterizes the human being
making him or her a human being is the spiritual soul. In summary, thehuman being is granted on respect for his or her spirituality and not materiality. And the spirit comes into existence, at the same time as the physical body comes into existence. That is the thinking in Catholic theology.
Now I try to give details of the “biological facts” firstly and afterwards the principle of ethics. The human life begins at the moment of
fertilization. While I am not a biologist, I would like to offer a simple
explanation of the standing position taken by Prof. Angelo Serra, Professor Emeritus of the Faculty of Medicine at the Catholic University of
Sacred Heart in Rome, an honorary member of the Academy for Life,and a world famous authority on human genetics [cf. Angelo Serra
L’embrione umano: Uomo e prezioso strumento tecnologico?, Atti dei

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

97

Convegno Celebrativo dei 50 anni di vita della Sezione “Il Medico e la
Sfide del Terzo Millennio”, Foggia, 2003, pp. 41–71; Japanese translation is: Akiba, “The Human Embryo: A Human Being or a Precious
Instrument of Technology?” Bioethics of the Catholic Church and thePontifical Academy for Life, pp. 51–87]. When the spermatozoon penetrates the zona pellucida of the oocyte, the fusion of the spermatozoon
and the oocyte takes place. Immediately after this, one can observe asudden change of the ionic composition in the fertilized ovum. Thischange is mainly due to a transient increase of intracellular calcium concentration that, under the action of oscilline, a newly discovered paternal
protein, rapidly spread like a wave (“calcium wave”) all around the fertilized ovum, signaling its activation and the fact that the embryonicdevelopment is at its inception. Owing to advancements in molecularbiology, this activity has been caught under a microscope. Now embryologists and molecular biologists are able to see through a microscopethese spreading waves of calcium and they clearly acknowledge that theactivity of a new life has begun.
The new cell or fertilized ovum in which the oocyte and spermatozoon are fused is the zygote. It has very peculiar properties of its own
that are dependent on the genome or genomic information of its own.
Two main properties of the zygote are: it has a precise identity, and it isoriented toward a definite development, that is, “identity” and “orientation.”“Identity” means the automatic self-organization of a new system,
which operates for the purpose of setting this fertilized ovum on the correct course of the following entire developmental process. That is to saythat from the very start, a program has been coded and the fertilized
ovum develops step by step towards becoming an adult human being
based on that program. We all have DNA. That DNA is not somethingthat gradually develops, but is something that is completely programmed at the moment of fertilization. Following fertilization, thezygote simply develops in accordance with the plan of the DNA. Previously this was not fully understood and it was often thought that the
DNA must be composed gradually. Quite recently I read an article in an
Italian newspaper that was based on an understanding that the development of the embryo was, in the initial stages, controled by the material
genes. This, of course, is false. It certainly isn’t any genetic material ofthe mother but its own DNA that makes the zygote develop from thevery beginning. This is what is meant by “identity.”“Orientation” means that the zygote is intrinsically oriented anddetermined toward a definite development. In the July 2002 edition of

98

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

the scientific magazine Nature, there appeared an article entitled “Your
Destiny, From Day One.” The subtitle was “The Mammalian Body Plan
Starts Being Laid Down from the Moment of Conception.” The sperm’s
entry point into the ovum at the fertilization determines where the cellfirst divides and then body axes are established. Therefore, saying in
addition, this article questions the impact of the Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) and certain techniques of assisted reproduction (forexample, Intra Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection, ICSI). During PGD one or
two cells is extracted from the embryo at the eight-cell stage, and during
ICSI, sperm is injected directly into the ovum. Such interventions could
destroy the delicate processes of establishing the body axes and so on.
However, what is important here is that the fate of each cell and ultimately all the tissues of the body is determined at the moment of fertilization. From the second to third day following fertilization, various
genes of its own start becoming active in a prescribed order. This geneactivity does not occur all at once, but rather, as the embryo develops,
the various genes gradually become active. Currently researchers arestarting to identify which genes begin to become active on what day andat what stage in the development of the embryo.
To sum up, except of those cases in which an error or accident occurs,
at the fusion of two gametes, a new real human individual initiates its
own existence, or life cycle. If during that life cycle all the necessary
conditions are put in place, all the capabilities that have been endowed
intrinsically with the embryo will be automatically actualized. Therefore, from the time the gametes fuse, the living human embryo is not
simply “a mass of cells,” but a real human being with its own identity.
The reason why I am emphasizing that the embryo is “not simply amass of cells” is because I would like to offer a position that is in opposition to one of the assertions that is widely held. They insist that theembryo is not a human being, but a mass of cells up until the 14th dayof its development, then human rights are not being violated even when
it is used and destroyed as experimental material.
Prof. Serra is active also as a clinician and a priest, so he is wellacquainted with both bioethics and medical ethics. However, his principle function at the Academy seems to be first of all to investigate thescientific documents as a specialist in human genetics and to judge accurately what the scientific truth is. Prof. Serra is over 85 years old andeven now is still very active in his profession. I am nothing more than acomplete amateur when it comes to biology and human genetics, and I
am very grateful for the fact that Prof. Serra has taught me carefully andin a truly easy-to-understand manner about the most recent informationPERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

99

regarding these fields.
With this, I would like to conclude my comments on the biologicalaspects.

The Principle of Ethics: Human Dignity “Without Exception”
One more issue of importance is the principle of ethics. That is, the principle of human dignity. We should recognize the fundamental rights andhuman dignity that all persons possess, without exception. It is also a
fundamental principle of the postwar international law, as I mentioned
before.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) is considered as
something like a constitution for international law after the war. Since
Japan also joined the United Nations, we are under the control of the
Declaration. The Declaration opens with the line: “Whereas recognitionof the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice andpeace in the world...”Based on this Universal Declaration, the conventions for a number ofdetailed human rights have been concluded. Among them, one that is
considered to be of particular importance is the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (1966), which is generally referred to as
the “B Covenant.” In Article 7 of the B Covenant, the following is written: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman ordegrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”
There may be some people who read this passage and find it to be somewhat strange. In Article 7, along side cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, subjecting people to medical or scientific experimentation without
their free consent is prohibited. This is the same as saying that “being
made into experimental material without ones free consent is equal totorture, or equal to inhumane punishment.”
Why was such an article introduced? In point of fact, it is an important article, which is directly guided by the postwar fundamental principle of international law, that is the human dignity principle. What then is
the thinking behind this article? It is a reflection on the medical experiments on human subjects conducted by the Nazis during WWII. In thefirst part of the Universal Declaration, remorse is expressed about theacts that violated the dignity of human beings during the war. These
were the acts of the Nazis. They engaged in cruel medical experiments
on human subjects. However, they were conducted as legitimate acts on

100

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

the excuse of medical progress. The people who were subjected to the
medical experiments were deprived their human rights and were degraded to mere experimental instruments. The Jews were considered inferior
beings by the Nazis and therefore it was thought to be acceptable to sacrifice them for the good purpose of benefiting human society andadvancing medicine and science. The Universal Declaration sought toget rid of this entire way of thinking. Thus, in order not to commit thesame gross violation again in the future, and for the sake of “freedom,justice and peace in the world,” human dignity should be protected without exception. Otherwise, we will find ourselves reverting back to theatrocities committed by the Nazis. The years following WWII beganwith these reflections and regrets. The Universal Declaration was thiskind of decisive declaration for the human race. This keynote of the
Universal Declaration is expressly stated in Article 7 of Covenant B.
The expression “degrading treatment” is found in Article 7. It means to
reduce human beings to animals, treating them as experimental instruments or laboratory animals. Heinrich Himmler, the Nazi who conducted experiments on human beings, is reported to have actually referred toJews as “laboratory animals.” Putting an end to such inhumane andimmoral acts was the goal of these fundamental principles establishedafter the war. Had that not been done, the Nazi past could well be
repeated. It is a commitment to the idea that it is impossible to constructa peaceful international society without the fundamental principle ofhuman dignity.
Where then does this concept of “human dignity” come from?
Jacques Maritain was a French Catholic philosopher. When the Universal Declaration was being drafted, he sent letters to politicians and otherphilosophers in the world, surveying them on such questions as “Whatare the fundamental human rights in your country? What is the mostfundamental of values?” When Maritain looked at the answers that werereturned to him, he found that, while differences in culture and religion
were evident, the basic contents were quite similar. In light of that, Maritain decided to make a key word which would represent the greatest
value and that would be common to all human family. And he used theexpression “human dignity.” While the concept of human dignity has its
root in Christianity, Maritain introduced this concept as to indicate theultimate value, above which there could be no other, bringing all humanbeings to the unity. In Japan “human dignity” is often confused with“respect for the individual,” which does not go beyond public welfare.
But nothing goes beyond human dignity, including public welfare. Thus
human dignity is the ultimate value in the postwar international society.

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

101

Unfortunately, we can see confusion in Japan now regarding the substance of the concept.
What I have discussed now is the fundamental principle of international law, but human dignity is also a fundamental principle of international ethics.
One document that reflects this is the Declaration of Helsinki. The
expression bioethics is a relatively recent term, but medical ethics itself
has been in use for long times. As mentioned before, the medical experiments on human subjects by the Nazis were conducted under the cloak
of medical progress. These experiments were not only illegal, but also
grave affairs in the medical world and for medical ethics. As a result, theWorld Medical Association issued the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964.
This document clearly states that, “In medical research on human subjects, considerations related to the well-being of the human subject
should take precedence over the interest of science and society.” That is,though experiments on human subjects could promote the advancementof medical science, we should not sacrifice anyone in order to save others. It is stating that every human beings, whoever they may be, mustnot be sacrificed in order to progress medical science.
In response to the Nuremburg Trials where the Nazi doctors wereconvicted for these experiments on human subjects, the Medical Association published the Declaration of Helsinki. It is the very foundation of
postwar international ethical principles on medical experimentation onhuman subjects. The Declaration of Helsinki has been revised manytimes after that, most recently in 2000. At present, regulations regarding
different types of experiments have been added to the Declaration.
Japan is also a member nation of the World Medical Association.
However, we cannot say this international agreement is effective inJapan. Most of the national medical associations in European countries
each have established their own deontological codes based on the provisions set down by the World Medical Association. They have also set up
their own autonomous judicial bodies. When a violation occurs, a trial isinitiated and in the case of gross violations licenses are revoked. Since
the deontological codes are severe and binding, even though there is nolegal regulations, this system is functioning quite well. Unfortunately inJapan we have no such a system.
The Declaration of Helsinki provides guiding principles for medical
research. Many of you may have little familiarity with medical research.
However, if you were to become sick, you might try out a new medical
treatment in a hospital. And to use unproven or new therapeutic measures is regarded as “medical research combined with medical care” by

102

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

the Declaration. Until thirty years ago in Japan the expression “a patient
for academic use” was even used. However, patients want to be cured
and, if there is no treatment method, one can imagine easily that they
will hope to try an unproven or new treatment. The physician will also
want to help such patients. However this physician’s desire to develop a
new treatment could be even stronger in their recommendations. And
the patient who received such a new treatment might have to go throughan excessive amount of pain, though they could make a contribution to
the progress of medical science. It is for this reason that the line “concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail over the interestsof science and society” has been written in the Declaration of Helsinki.
It has been pointed out that, while recently this situation has improved
substantially, Japan is behind other countries in the protection of humansubjects.
Not a few conventions or rules of ethics have come into effective after
the Declaration of Helsinki. Among others there is the “Convention on
Human Rights and Biomedicine” of the Council of Europe (1996). The
official title is long and is as follows. “Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to theApplication of Biology and Medicine.” More simply, it is referred to as
the “Convention on Bioethics.” It might be difficult to presume the substance of the Convention from the brief title “Convention on Bioethics.”
However, if we were to see the longer title, we would probably understand that the Convention is designed to protect the dignity and rights ofhuman subjects in the biomedical research. The Council of Europe invited also Japan to adopt the Convention, but we did not.
The “Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human
Rights” put out by UNESCO (1997) is also one of the international ethical conventions, which takes human dignity as the highest principle.
Now, according to the Declaration of Helsinki, we would conclude
that the human embryo cannot be the subject of medical research for thefollowing reason. The Declaration of Helsinki imposes “to obtain thesubject’s freely-given informed consent for any research on humanbeings.” Special consideration must be given to people who are underage incapable to give consent and people who have lost consciousness.
Also from a human embryo his or her informed consent cannot be
obtained and so the medical research on human embryos that will notbenefit the embryo him or herself is clearly prohibited by the Declaration. For example, due to the advancement of technology, we might findsome disease on the early human embryo. In this case, would it beacceptable to resort to experimental treatment? If it were thought accept-

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

103

able, then it would be in order to “save the human embryo him or herself.” The other experiment or the medical research for the purpose of
producing ES cells and so on could contribute to curing the illness of theother persons, but the illness of the human embryo could not be cured.
Conversely, that human embryo would be sacrificed. Therefore, themedical research on human embryos cannot be done in principle under
the Declaration of Helsinki.
Thus, when the argument arose as to whether it was acceptable to perform experiments on human embryos, the first thing that came to theminds of scientists might be “will it be possible to revise the Declaration of Helsinki?” Because they had known very well that humanembryos could not be used for experiments, so far as the Declaration
would not be revised.

Objection 1: The Pre-embryo Theory
Meanwhile, different opinions were put forth from the position of thosepromoting scientific research on human embryos. They insisted that thehuman embryo was not yet a human being, which made it possible to doresearch under the principle of human dignity. If a human embryo were
not a human being, it could not be covered by the principle of humandignity.
Under that kind of logic, Britain was the first in the world to open up
the scientific use of human embryos in 1984. The Warnock Reportoffered the approval of scientific use of early human embryos. How did
this transpire? The Warnock Committee had a very famous embryologist, Anne McLaren, who was a Nobel Prize winner. The mission of the
Warnock Committee was to issue an answer as to whether the scientificresearch on early human embryos should be allowed or not in Britain.
However, the majority of Committee members were not specialists inembryology like Prof. McLaren and at that time it was still not clearly
understood when the human life biologically began. At this stage, Prof.
McLaren asserted that, “the embryo does not exist during the first two
weeks after fertilization,” and introduced the term “pre-embryo.” This
term introduced an idea that the pre-embryo should be considered as amass of cells which does not yet constitute a human being. If this were ascientific fact, the scientific use of “pre-embryo” might have been recognized by the Catholic Church. Because, if “a human being did not yet
exist,” human dignity would not come into question and, as a result,
there would be room for experimental research on pre-embryos. Britain
started down on the path of conducting the research based on this “pre-104

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

embryo theory.”
However, later, Prof. McLaren herself abandoned this theory. In 2000,
she clearly acknowledged that a human embryo began to exist not on
and after the 14th day, but from the very start. Furthermore, the term“pre-embryo” was completely erased from O’Rahilly’s manual of
human embryology (2001 edition).

Objection 2: The Possibility of Twins
The other different opinion is that the embryo up to the 14th day bears
within it the possibility of becoming identical twins and therefore it isstill not an individual, and so, it does not have its own personality. This
opinion had a great deal of influence on the Bioethics Committee ofJapan. At the Bioethics Committee, deliberations regarding the biological beginnings of the human being had not had at all. At the start,
McLaren’s theory had served as the reference, but later the argumentthat held the greatest sway was this opinion regarding the possibility ofidentical twins.
Norman Ford who put forth this opinion is a Catholic biologist. In
Japan, since the Catholic Church’s standpoint had not been well known,
the Bioethics Committee might have been under the misunderstandingthat “even the Catholic Church is saying that it is acceptable to conduct
experiments on the human embryo up to the 14th day because it is not
yet an individual.” Ford’s opinion had, unfortunately, strongly persuasive powers also in other countries. Because his opinion appealed topeople who wanted to promote scientific research on human embryos.
However, the occurrence of identical (monozygotic) twins is just an
accident in biological terms. Normally one fertilized ovum, that is anembryo, does not divide into two, but it can rarely divide into two fromthe two-cell stage until about the 14th day of development due to somekind of accident. The rate of this occurring is only 0.22%. “The Human
Embryo in its Pre-Implantation Phase,” which is the newest publicationof the Pontifical Academy for Life in June of this year, demonstrates scientifically that, against the opinion of Ford, the individuality of theembryo is acquired at the moment of fertilization. It goes on to say that,“the cellular plasticity and malleability of early embryonic development
does not annual the individuality established at the fusion of gametes; ifanything, it highlights the essential role of those properties in the regulation of the new organism’s development for example, in order to give it
the capacity to compensate for eventual injuries or errors in the programme of embryonic evolution.”PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

105

Objection 3: The “Person” Theory
One more objection from the advocates of human embryonic research isthat human dignity is not recognized in all human beings, but only a certain group of human beings. It insists that some human beings including
early human embryos are not “persons” entitled to human dignity. Also
in Japan, this point of view has many supporters, and there are those
who think that “a person” is to be understood as a being that has “rational self-consciousness.” Based on this line of reasoning, people who do
not have self-consciousness would not be viewed as persons deserving
human dignity, and then human rights. For example, Peter Singer who
holds to this opinion insists that, since dolphins have IQs greater than
three-year-old human children, dolphins or chimpanzees are more intelligent and “person” like. Singer has come to Japan to lecture on several
occasions, and while I don’t know how many people agree his views,
this “person” theory has been broadly introduced in Japan. A number ofBritish and American influential scholars of bioethics, including
Michael Tooley and H. Tristram Engelhardt share this theory. In Japan,
western bioethics are lumped together and thought of as a single entity.
However, among them, there are two lines of thinking, and they can beroughly divided into Personalistic bioethics, which take human dignity
as the ultimate principle and Anglo-American bioethics, which take as
their ultimate principles the self-determination of the individual, thefreedom of the individual, and the individual pursuit of happiness. In
Japan, Anglo-American bioethics have been one-sidedly introduced to aremarkable degree.
According to this thinking, all human beings do not have personhood
or personality; only a certain portion of all people has personhood. If we
adopt this opinion, we can perform experiments on human embryos up
to the 14th day not yet having self-consciousness. In any case, theappearance of the primitive streak on the embryo, which is the origin of
the neuron, occurs only after 14th day. So there could be no pain, no
feeling and no self-consciousness in the early embryo. Therefore, thehuman embryo up to the 14th day is not a “person” and then, it isacceptable to conduct experiments on it. However, on the same logic, itwould be possible to deny the human dignity and human rights of, forexample, the patients who are in a vegetative state.
This point of view is referred to as the “Person” theory. The conceptof the person in the personalism found in Catholic bioethics is quite different from one in the “Person” theory. As I mentioned before, theessential feature of a person is to be found in the spiritual soul. A person

106

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

signifies the capacity of self control, personal responsibility to live in thetruth and the moral order. And even if this capacity has not actuallymaterialized, it is sufficient if there is the potential capacity to develop
in that way. This capacity is not dependent on a person’s age, the physical body, the psychological state, the naturally inherent traits of a person, or DNA; it resides within the spiritual soul of all human beings. It
is not something that has a biological or psychological nature; it is existential in nature.
According to the “Person” theory, whether someone is a person or not
is determined by naturally inherent traits, IQ, etc. The theory which
attributes superiority and inferiority to human beings based on suchgenetic material—DNA is a material thing—takes sides with eugenics,
using the same logic of the Nazis. On the other hand, according toCatholic thought, the spiritual soul is something nonmaterial and transcendental, that God breathed into all human beings. The soul is not
something that human beings have acquired by themselves; it is given
from outside of themselves by grace. Human beings were created in the“image of God.” God created human beings to look like Him. And
human beings are invited into a personal communion with God. Whatmakes human beings a person is that they have a spiritual soul holding
communion with God.
As I am created in the image of God, other people are also created in
the image of God. All human beings are children of God and withinthem dwells the Spirit of God that transcends one’s own subjective perspective and understanding. In the sense that all people have the same
Spirit of God, they are all brothers and sisters. Therefore, as brothers
and sisters they should love one another and help one another. This is
the Catholic thought, but the same philosophy is written in the first Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was mentioned before.
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They
are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one
another in a spirit of brotherhood.” When we compare our IQs and physical abilities, there are differences among us. We are never equal at all inthis regard. However, this Declaration asserts that we are all completely
equal in our spiritual soul.
I’m sure that many of you are familiar with a famous painting “TheCreation of Adam” by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel. According to
the Bible, God took from the earth and formed the human body,breathed life into it and created a man. In this painting Adam’s body is
muscularly well defined and is perfectly formed in a physical or material

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

107

way, but he lacks vigor. He has no life. Now, God is about to touch
Adam with His right index finger. He is about to animate him with theHoly Spirit. Because of this spirituality of the soul, which is filled with
the Holy Spirit, the human being acquires its dignity.
However, after God created Adam who was the first human being, thehuman race did not continue to increase in number by God taking alump of clay and molding one human being after another; rather they
increased through procreation by a man and a woman. God invited men
and women to participate in the Creation of God. Since then God has
been continuing to create human beings through the procreation by men
and women, through the communion of men and women.
When artificial reproduction is discussed, the expression “reproductive rights” is often used. The word “reproduce” is also used when talking about making objects or reproducing animals. Catholics use a
different word, “procreate,” to describe reproduction of human beings.
“Procreate” means “to promote creation.” Therefore, it refers to participating in and promoting the Creation of God. What is important is that ahuman being is not manufactured or reproduced like an object by someother persons, but becomes a living being by virtue of the spiritual soul,
which is something that cannot be produced by men. That is, the dignityof procreation is derived from the spiritual soul; it is not derived frommaterial or physical characteristics, such as the superiority or inferiorityof the DNA, or the activity of the cerebral nerves.
In February of this year, the General Assembly of the PontificalAcademy for Life was held under the theme “The Human Embryo
Before Implantation.” A picture by the name of “Visitation (Mary’s Visit
to Elizabeth)” was used on the cover of the program. In June of thisyear, as mentioned before, a booklet was published that summarized ineasy-to-understand terms the results of this assembly, and this picture
was also used here for the cover. On the left is Mary. On the right is
Elizabeth. Jesus is in Mary’s womb, and the prophet John the Baptist is
in Elizabeth’s womb. Mary who has conceived Jesus is going to meet
Elizabeth, and, as written in the Bible, the baby John inside the womb
leaps at this time. Jesus is the Son of God and so when Jesus comes,
even though John the Baptist is still an embryo inside Elizabeth, heleaps for joy at the visit of the Divine Mother. John the Baptist certainly
doesn’t have self-consciousness, and he cannot actually touch or evensee. In spite that, he can have some kind of communication with God
not through the sensory organ. I think this picture was used on the pamphlet because it demonstrates this point. In short, it shows the fact that it
is possible even for people who are in a state “prior to rationality and108

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

consciousness” to have a communion with God.
After Pope John Paul II passed away, his successor Pope Benedict
XVI presented a specific kind of decree “Compendium of the Catechismof the Catholic Church” shortly after he acceded to his new position in2005. The following section summarizes the Catholic standing position
regarding the protection of human embryos.
“The inalienable right to life of every human individual from the first
moment of conception is a constitutive element of civil society and its
legislation. When the State does not place its power at the service of therights of all and in particular of the more vulnerable, including unborn
children, the very foundations of a State based on law are undermined.”
This is a confirmation of the spirit of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, a confirmation of the truth that human dignity is thefoundation of peace. I believe that Pope Benedict XVI is warning us thatthe scientific use of human embryos that is in agreement with the “Person” theory is a threat to the peace to which the Universal Declarationof Human Rights aspires.

Biotechnology and Religious People
I would like to conclude my talk today by answering the question:“What is the mission of religious people with regards to the progress of
biotechnology?”First, sending a message about the ultimate value of human life atindividual discretion and getting united for the construction of peace.
Secondly, getting the accurate scientific truth on the current biotechnology. Through this, it will also be possible to propose concrete alternatives that will truly promote biotechnology in line with the principleof human dignity. The Catholic Church is not simply opposing ES cells
research, but offering alternatives.
For example, it is possible to reprogram adult stem cells to produce
different types of cells, mostly blood cells, muscle cells and neural cells.
The Catholic Church has proposed that adult stem cells research should
be promoted. In fact, currently also in Japan many scientists are engaged
in this research and some have reached the stage of conducting clinicalexperiments. It has also being reported that a clinical experiment on cardiac muscle cells derived from adult stem cells will soon be conducted.
On the other hand, the prospects for ES cells research are not rosy.
For example, the American company Geron began to do research on ES
cells, but its stock, which was $69.00 in 2000, dropped sharply to $1.69
three years later. The British company PPL Therapeutics’ stock was

PERSONALISTIC BIOETHICS

109$320.00 in 2000 and dropped to $11.00 in 2003.
Many of you may have heard about the scandal in which Prof. Hwang
Woo-suk of Seoul National University claimed falsely that he had “succeeded” in producing cloned ES cells. Although many problems behind
this scandal have been reported, what scientists have been paying themost attention to is that over 2000 ova have had been used in his
research. Even though 2000 ova in good condition were collected andused for his research, not a single cloned ES cell could be obtained successfully. This fact has made scientists suppose cloned ES cells research
is not promising. I believe that one of the reason why Professor Nakatsuji is saying that he will not conduct this type of research is because ofthis point. Whatever the case, it seems to be a problem to report that ES
cells research could promise a dream treatment. In fact, we have not yet
succeeded even in the cloning of primates such as monkeys.
The Catholic Church has pointed out that the promotion of this typeof research may well turn out to be a drastic waste of time and money.
In addition, Prof. Serra is also proposing gene therapy instead ofassisted reproductive technology. He is suggesting that we seek out not
to reproduce a baby with the donated embryo or gametes and so on, but
to identify the genes that cause sterility and infertility, and directly
attack them or modify their expression. Thanks to the results of the
Human Genome Project, the genes that are the cause of sterility andinfertility have been starting to be identified. Prof. Serra says this new
way is more promising and respectful to the dignity of both the parents
and the babies to be born.
On the other hand, in order to achieve a 95% success rate throughIVF, which is the most popular technique of reproduction, it is necessary
for women to undergo 13 to 15 interventions on average. There aremany women who give up half way. What is worse, that intervention isextremely stressful and so 80% of women who are not successful tend to
fall into depression. It has also been pointed out that serious conditions
can occur in the babies born through these techniques. For example,
these include a high rate of miscarriage, premature birth, a very low
birth weight, fatality and morbidity.
Therefore, in light of these facts, we should research what kinds ofalternatives exist. Might there not be a better way? In order to propose
such alternatives, I believe we must accurately gain an understanding of
the scientific truth, having fully considered the ethical principles.