CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

MARTIN ŠOLC CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ More specific is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights from 1966. Its Article 6 (1) states: Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. In this formulation of the right to life, we may notice not only possible lawful deprivation of life which is in fact obvious (for example in cases of self-defense), but more importantly the term “every human being” . Meanwhile it may seem to be the synonym for “everyone” , it can also be argued that the difference between both terms is in a certain context crucial. As we have already shown in the introduction to the ethical debate, empirical functionalism draws the line between human beings and persons. From this view, it can be argued that the term “everyone” comprises only human persons, but when the right is attributed to “every human being” , we need to involve also human embryos and other human non-persons. This argumentation is, however, rather theoretical and it would not become the subject of harsh scrutiny should it be used in judicial proceedings or a political debate. Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation” . It is interesting that according to this Article, experimentation without consent represents a case of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment. This prohibition must be understood as an absolute, or categorical, legal requirement. No potential benefit of research may justify the involuntary involvement of human subjects. 39 Also the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights from 1966 guarantees several relevant rights. According to Article 12 (1), “everyone” has the right “to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health” . The States Parties to the Covenant should take the steps to achieve full realization of the said right. In a non- exhaustive list of the goals of the steps to be taken, there is included also the reduction of the stillbirth-rate. While this may be motivated also by the psychological and physical risks to the mother’s health, it seems to be likely that the authors of the Covenant expressed their belief in a remarkable moral value of unborn human life. Article 15 guarantees everyone, among other rights, the right “to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications” . The States Parties should take steps to fully realize this right, including the necessary steps for the development and the diffusion of science. The States Parties are furthermore obliged “to respect the freedom indispensable for scientific research” . It is obvious, however, that the said freedom is by no means illimitable. The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights was adopted by UNESCO as a non-binding document in 1997. Its Article 10 contains a categorical precedence of the respect for the human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity of individuals or groups over the interests of research. Article 4 explicitly states that “[t]he human genome in its natural state shall not give rise to financial gains“ . Article 11 prohibits reproductive cloning of human beings as a practice which is contrary to human dignity. Therapeutic cloning is not regulated by the Declaration, suggesting that the ban on reproductive cloning is motivated by the interests of born children and the society as a whole rather than any inherent value of embryos or foetuses. 39 The categorical imperative of informed consent in the context of medical research was famously formulated by a US physician and ethicist Henry K. Beecher in his paper from 1966. BEECHER, Henry K., Ethics and Clinical Research. The New England Journal of Medicine. (1966, Vol. 274, No. 24), p. 1354-1360. accessed 6 April 2017.

434