Andreia Carvalho

This article presents an overview ofregulations, guidelines and societal debates ineight member states of the EC about a)embryonic and fetal tissue transplantation(EFTT), and b) the use of human embryonic stemcells (hES cells) for research into celltherapy, including `therapeutic' cloning. Thereappears to be a broad acceptance of EFTT inthese countries. In most countries guidance hasbeen developed. There is a `strong' consensusabout some of the central conditions for `goodclinical practice' regarding EFTT.International differences concern, amongstothers, some of the informed consent issuesinvolved, and the questions whether anintermediary organisation is necessary, whetherthe methods of abortion may be influenced bythe possible use of EFT, and whether EFTTshould only be used for the experimentaltreatment of rare disorders. The potential useof hES cells for research into cell therapy hasgiven a new impetus to the debate about (human)embryo research. The therapeutic prospects withregard to the retrieval and research use of hEScells appear to function as a catalyst for theintroduction of less restrictive regulationsconcerning research with spare embryos, atleast in some European countries. It remains tobe seen whether the prospect of treatingpatients suffering from serious disorders withtransplants produced by therapeutic cloningwill decrease the societal and moral resistanceto allowing the generation of embryos for`instrumental' use

This brief presentation, guided by the thought of archi-writing of Jacques Derrida, has the double purpose of, on the one hand, showing how the Greco-Western philosophical tradition is based on the irreducible privilege of a supposed living word – logo-phono-centrism – and, on the other hand, showing how the thought of archi-writing deconstructs this privilege, pointing out that every mark, spoken or written, occurs already in a scene that makes it, in advance, a response. With this in mind, it becomes essential, in a first moment, to elucidate the concept of logo-phono-centrism, assuming it as the fundament of the privilege of the living word and consequent secondarization of the writing, under its traditional conceptual-ization. In a second moment, deconstructing the logo-phono-centric orien-tation enunciated before, the way in which the thought of archi-writing is highlighted, leading to the impossibility of any originary fullness of sense reveals a singular notion of response that shows a deconstruction already operating in every mark, written or spoken.