The Law on Biosafety, established in 2005, provides certain limitations to research with living organisms (described in Article 3, paragraph I of the Law 11,105, which makes for 24-3-2005: body - any biological entity capable of playing or transfer genetic material, including viruses and other classes that come to light;) The embryonic stem cells (such as the aforementioned article 3, paragraph XI: embryo cells that have the ability to transform into cells of any tissue from a body), brought to the ballroom, numerous differences between society, church and state. Such cells can be extracted from the umbilical cord of newborns, of embryos or the human body itself has matured (although very little used).

The biggest controversy revolves around understanding the subjective, as no evidence on what would be the exact moment when life begins. It would be only at birth? Or rather, at the time of fertilization, even when the cell is dividing? The answer to these questions lies, as said in the ideological subjectivity of each institution in each individual.

Such questions are as relevant because it is believed that each cell, individually, is a being and has the right to life. So the zygote (cell embryo resulting from fertilization of the egg with the sperm) would be provided with life enough so that you were guaranteed, precisely, the constitutional principle (Article 227), to live.  

Right at this, it is the duty that we must find the most appropriate solution. Given that the embryonic stem cells will help dozens of people with degenerative diseases, and many others, to achieve an improvement, or, who knows the cure, through its power of

assimilation and transformation of cells in other parts of the body , as mentioned above.

The Law on Biosafety has therefore wide discussion on the topic, which defines security standards and mechanisms for monitoring the construction, the cultivation, production, handling, transport, transfer, import, export, storage, research, marketing, consumption, release into the environment and disposal of genetically modified organisms - GMOs and their derivatives (...), Article 1, caput, the Law 11,105, from 24-3-2005.

Importantly, before a more punctual, is considering two ways to curtail the doctrinal speeches closely. The first is that this follows the theory Natalia. The theory used by Natalia and the Brazilian civil law with only one exception, worthy of attention. Provisions of art 2 of the CC, the legislature is concerned with legal personality (general ability to acquire rights and contract obligations or duties in the civil order) acquired by the person born with life. Meanwhile ensures the rights of the unborn child (exception) since its conception, legitimizing it (through a representative), then, to inherit property, claim share of food, so be done.

Moreover, the current that follows the theory Conception, preaches that the legal personality should be ensured at the moment of conception. In fact, the new doctrine and even the minds of legislators, the theory goes to conception, as this more comprehensive.

It is reasonable to consider that the theory that takes into account the time of conception, to give personality to the person, it is more correct, however, its applicability hinder the perpetuation of the search.

The difficulty created is justified on the basic point of this theory. If the moment of conception (fertilization) is actually considered the important point for the allocation of personality, and therefore all the rights of the person they are absorbed by natural embryo, it will be because, confrontational situation. From the moment when the embryo is conceived, the violation, how to be alive, is unconstitutional, therefore, illegal.

Thus, I would be even more difficult to increase the research, because so they were implemented, the potential lives would be sacrificed, contradicting numerous constitutional and moral principles.

However, some say that even giving the right personality to embryos, in a hypothetical situation, but not discarded, it would be an act unconstitutional sacrifice them for the sake of other lives, because they still would not be able to feel any pain and could not express their will because the brain system begins to be formed only after a certain period during pregnancy, because they would not be subject to law. It is discussed, then, to give personality to the embryo only from the time that his brain was formed, so it would assume some of that wisdom. This hypothesis, for practical purposes, would only worsen the state of the discussion, as the scientists who handle the stem cells are important, precipuamente the early stages of pregnancy. The developing fetus, from a point, no longer serve. Not by scientific question, but the moral, if enxergarmos as a genuine cruelty use the fetus for medical and scientific purposes that was not to save the lives of their biological mother or rent as a case of rape, for example, where the doctor is allowed to practice abortion by the consent of the mother (art 128 of the Criminal Code).

Finally, it is true that research with stem cells will be very beneficial to modern medicine, and even more for those who need special care because of serious diseases that scourge.

Recently the Supreme Court of Justice reaffirmed the law 11105/05 to the judge that the search for such bodies must continue yes. However, even if that decision has helped to raise the hopes of thousands of sick people, processes for research are slow and time of stoppage, until the law was revitalized, only served to worsen the conditions of scientific laboratories, to the point that they were going a gradual pace and then continued until the suspension of work.

Another relevant factor is that the law limited the embryos to be used in research, which has generated uncertainty in the scientific community, because the number of embryos available at the time might not be necessary to cover the high demand of stakeholders in the polls, a fact which led the National Agency of Health to catalog the embryos present and finally organize them for the better implementation of the work.

To consolidating a democratic state as stated in the law is more, we look for that type of discussion. We can not take into account the position of the Church or part of the scientific world, when in a position anti-humanitarianism to advocate the abolition of the research. Above all, we must bear in mind that society is composed of human beings, we should live according to ourselves to improve our own lives. And it is necessary for equitable cooperation of organizations around the globe, so that we can lead our civilization to a world away from diseases, from inequality and unified in purpose to do good from the techno-scientific instruments developed, curiously, by ourselves.

This is a democratic state of law, the real law is the composition of the egalitarian society. And to achieve this goal if we have to take a major step as the total release of research with living organisms, we will. Well where the society is, is definitely the right to act and our people, society is man, the man is the law, so the company is the law. “Ubi Societas, Ibi Jus”, where is the society, there is the Law. It is pure social fact.

References JÚNIOR, Nelson Nery, Nery, Rosa Maria de Andrade. New Civil Code and Law Annotated back. São Paulo: RT, 2002.1759P. LADRIÈRE, Jean.Ética and Scientific Thought - Addressing the Problems Filosófica Bioethics. São Paulo: Arts and Letters, 1988. 152p. DURANTE, Guy. The Reflection of Bioethics. São Paulo. 1995. 102p.

Footer

This work is licensed by Luiz Felipe Nobre Braga under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 2.0), and is an Open Educational Resource.

Last edited by Luiz Felipe Nobre Braga on Jan 8, 2009 11:57 am US/Central.