Biomedicine issues provoke, within the European countries, a persistent divergence of attitudes, in particular when the debate implicates a discussion on the use of human embryos in the medical and scientific research, due to the therapeutic characteristics of staminal cells. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union mirrors this contrast and intentionally does not bring any relevant modification to the compromise achieved with the previous Treatise of Oviedo. Within the bioethical debate - in particular as for the one concerning the so called “therapeutic cloning” (Somatic Cells Nuclear Transplant) - intrinsically different positions come to a confrontation. In such a situation the jurist may find a specific role. His duty should be that of underlining the existence of any possible conflict of interest and of analysing the practical relapses of the normative systems involved by the different ethical attitudes, thus revealing the consequences – which in no case can be considered neutral – that would derive from the transformation of certain ethical/religious options into effective normative systems.
