Last week the United Nations voted by the closest of margins to delay for two years any consideration of a treaty to ban human cloning. The General Assembly's legal committee voted 80-79 to accept a motion introduced by Iran on behalf of the 57 Islamic nations to postpone UN action on a total ban or partial ban. There were 15 abstentions.

Some pro-life groups were pleased by the decision. They were fearing that if a decision for or against cloning was to be taken it would have been for, at least, the so-called therapeutic cloning.

The Holy See was "disappointed" with this UN Commission's decision on human cloning. "Undoubtedly... economic and commercial questions... have held great weight behind the scenes," Vatican UN Permanent Observer, Archbishop Migliore, told Vatican Radio.

The Maltese government consistently had a position against all forms of cloning. This position, which is just another example of the pro-life stand the government takes in international fora, is to be highly commended.

When the Prime Minister addressed the UN General Assembly on September 25, 2003, he said: "One area where norm setting is in its early stages concerns the issue of cloning. Malta approaches this issue from a moral and ethical standpoint based on the deepest respect for human life.

"We believe that while scientific considerations are sometimes relevant in matters of this nature, the final decisions must be based primarily on fundamental human, ethical and moral considerations. In this spirit, the proposed draft resolution proposing a convention that bans all forms of human cloning fully reflects our views in this regard.

"For this reason we will support this draft resolution. At the same time, we also believe that on issues of such deep ethical and moral sensitivities real progress can only be achieved through consensus."

The issue of cloning is a very important one. We referred to it more than once and do the same today. A distinction is made between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. But just how valid is this distinction?

David Prentice, a life sciences professor at Indiana State University, addressed this in an article placed on the Family Research Council Website, titled "Under the Microscope: A Scientific Look at Cloning".

He observed: "All human cloning is reproductive, in that it creates - reproduces - a new developing human intended to be virtually identical to the cloned subject." The same techniques are used, and the cloned embryos are the same, whatever their fate. So, "disingenuous euphemisms to describe a cloned embryo as something other than an embryo are not scientific", Prentice argued.

He also objected to the use of the term therapeutic. "In medical ethics, 'therapeutic research' is defined as research that could provide therapeutic benefit to the individual subjected to research risks," Prentice explained.

But with "therapeutic cloning" the new human life is "specifically created in order to be destroyed as a source of tissue". Whatever the use to which it is put, the technique is certainly not therapeutic for the embryo.

Other objections to cloning relate to the danger of deformations in the new individuals, and the immense waste of life involved by the creating of large numbers of embryos.

David Stevens, executive director of the 17,000-member Christian Medical Association, pointed out: "With the high rate of death and deformity experienced in animal cloning and presumably applied to humans as well, even to experiment with human cloning shows a horrible disregard for the value of human life."

And what about justifying cloning for the good it will do the sick? The Pope examined this in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. In paragraph 74, John Paul II noted that in judging the rectitude of an act a number of factors come into play: the intention of a person, the circumstances surrounding it, and the consequences of the act.

The encyclical warns that it is a mistake to judge the morality of an act by merely focusing on the consequences of doing something, or of just trying to achieve the "greater good" or "lesser evil" in a particular situation.

The Pope pointed out in paragraph 80 that some acts "radically contradict the good of the person". These acts are always morally evil, independently of the intentions behind them or the circumstances surrounding them.

The Second Vatican Council pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes, observed John Paul II, stipulated that among this class of acts are included "whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person".

Applying this respect for human life in the field of bioethics, the Holy Father in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae commented: "The commandment 'You shall not kill' has absolute value when it refers to the innocent person. And all the more so in the case of weak and defenceless human beings, who find their ultimate defence against the arrogance and caprice of others only in the absolute binding force of God's commandment" (paragraph 57).

"The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end," the Pope stated. Exploiting human embryos as biological material, or to provide organs or tissue in the treatment of certain diseases, "constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act", warns the encyclical in paragraph 63.

This means that care for the sick can't come at the expense of innocent life.