Ethical Problems of Cloning - Essay Example

Ethical Problems of Cloning The work rises ethical problems, concerning cloning of humans. How should cloning be looked at Is this a positive or negative phenomenon, and what are the differences between reproductive and therapeutic cloning Is cloning aimed at saving people's lives, reconstructing dead or creating some kind of super-humans I'll try to answer the questions through the using a live example of a family, for which cloning may seem the only way out of the problem. The talk will be about Jim and Gwen Brent. Jim and Gwen Brent are the parents of Ruth, who is four years old. Two years ago Ruth was diagnosed with acute lymphoblast leukemia. She has been treated with chemotherapy and was in remission for 18 months. However, the leukemia has reoccurred. The doctors are hopeful, that they can induce a remission again. However, the most effective treatment would be a bone marrow transplant. Jim and Gwen have no other children and neither of them are a close enough match. They decide to attempt to conceive another child who will be a match for Ruth and seek assistance from an IVF specialist. They will then be able to use the cord blood for the transplant. They undergo three attempts involving the collection and fertilization of ova. Each embryo is tested but none of the eight embryos are a match. Ruth has finished the repeated courses of chemotherapy and is in remission again. However, her parents are not sure, how long she will remain in remission and are disheartened by the failure to find an embryo that is a match. They ask the doctors to consider cloning Ruth, using an egg from Gwen with the nucleus removed. The doctors are reasonably sure, that they could successfully clone a child, even though it has only been trialed with animals. However, they are seriously concerned, that the child would be born with birth defects. Jim and Gwen acknowledge this concern but feel there is no other way to save Ruth. Is cloning a human real Should human clones exist The question is not in technical peculiarities now, but in the moral and ethical implications of cloning. On the one hand, this act may be considered immoral. It is known, that a person has got not only body, but thoughts, deeds, moral standards. People can be happy and sad, angry and kind. And people have got reason. This is the fundamental difference of humans and animals. There is the risk, that a human clone won't have human thoughts or traits, which won't make him different from animals. This creature will be like an empty cover without soul. The so-called cloning technology distinguishes only material, and not spiritual nature of people. Thus it may create a mass production of humans without any relation to the real act of conception and with giving a little individual no mind or soul. Transplantation of organs from a clone, whose donor attributes are similar to those of the patient, may not be a desirable objectivity. The life of a human, even of a cloned one, should not be considered as the consumer product. Even an embryo at its initial stage of development possesses life. That's why it may be considered immoral to create human life for further killing it. It is rather difficult to accept cloning from the ethical point of view. But there is also some concern from technological point of view. Though cloned animals exist, but it has been noticed that they often have physical defects or are overtaken by untimely death. This very fact was outlined to Ruth's parents - there is the great risk of the cloned child having many physical defects, and there are no guarantees, that the child will live a long life. According to the research, the probable rates of death among children may reach 50%. Taking into account this fact, some people may consider cloning to be a crime. No one should strive to acquire hundreds of embryos, which stand in front of the danger of being destroyed. This fact is enough to suppose cloning to be immoral. Moreover, the children, who were born through cloning, may meet a lot of terrible problems in their lives, as deformation, untimely aging, ethical and moral problems and unbearable psychological pressure; to make people take these risks will become the most unethical act of medicine. At the present stage of genetics' development its problems are becoming extremely relevant, especially in its part, concerning cloning. People are trying to come into the natural course of biological systems' development, to bend it to their will and to rule them. Thus there appear two problems, which are interrelated. The first problem is the following. In order to reach success in cloning, it is necessary to try a great number of recipients, about 300, and only one of them will become a living clone, others being defective or freaks. So, what is humanity to do with the great number of those freaks And there appears another question: may be it would be better to direct the genetic efforts at helping normal parents in having normal children in the technological society Here one speaks about the decrease of pathologies among children, who have been born naturally, and for preventing anomalies of those, who have not been born yet. But this is more methodical aspect, and here we should better concentrate on ethical problems, in case Ruth is really cloned. In more global aspect there is the question, will the society wish to be replaced by the cloned humanity How will this chain develop further In the more specific projection there arise the problems, as for how the clone will be accepted by his relatives, what will be a person's attitude towards his image-copy The situation with Ruth is very difficult, but cloning should not be considered the only way out. Let's look at psychological problem of the future child: how will he accept his copy It is possible, that he will never perceive himself as an independent personality, and will feel an image copy of someone living next to him, which will finally lead to the deep crisis of individuality and moral suffering In our case we speak about therapeutic cloning. The aim of this cloning is not creating a whole organism, but rather its part. Therapeutic cloning aims at receiving the line of human cloned embryo stem cells, in order to cure diseases, in the base of which irreversible organic changes of cells lie. From the point of view of faith, the process of cloning eliminates the union of a man and a woman, the aim of which is creating a new life. Physical intimacy has the primary importance in human relations. Here we speak about a child, who is really created by both parents. The DNA of mother and father are united to create a new unique human with his own genetic code. And it is impossible to predict, how the chromosomes will connect while creating a new individual. In its turn, cloning is no sexual intimacy, and the produced person is rather a planned repetition of another person, than a new and unique individual. That's why from the point of view of Christianity, cloning is breaking the sexual intimacy, the family structure and the principles of reproduction. And it is possible to agree with Christians, as cloning is breaking the usual order of life on the planet. But is it possible, that breaking these principles, and being harmful at total application, will appear to be useful is some situations, and at times may be considered as the reasonable decision One of the possible ways of development for cloning is creating new tissues and organs for diseased people. One of the ways of saving Ruth will be creating new bone marrow, which will cure her and give her a new life. Either this organ may be grown separately, or together with the cloned child, should also be decided. Most people don't give any ethical objections against growing tissues in laboratory conditions for the further use as a transplant or in other kinds of curing. But what if a whole child is cloned, so that his younger twin-brother (or sister, as it is in case with Ruth) should become his (her) donor of absolutely compatible organ and give the older child a possibility to survive It would be possible to discuss all ethical aspects of cloning for a long time, but there are several clear and strong reasons, for which cloning would be simply unethical at present time. The experiments with animals have shown that our knowledge in this area is very limited, in the least. Only few attempts of cloning have been successful. So how high is the probability that Ruth's clone will be healthy and that he (or better, she) will live enough long to give the bone marrow transplant to her older sister Won't this process end by another death of a child Many clones die before they are born and immediately after their birth. Those, who survive, often have inborn defects. It is impossible to predict, which will be the long-term consequences for the growth and development of the human clone. In the light of these reasons, cloning may be considered unethical at present moment. On the other hand, there may be found several objections to the statement that cloning is immoral. Many people suppose that we try to undertake the role of God. But let's remember that there also exists artificial fecundation, which may also be considered another attempt of becoming God and creating people. There should also be seen a positive aspect of this phenomenon: a couple, which is not able to have children, may become parents. Isn't it good Then why not create organs with the best intentions at curing so many people on the planet There are still more opponents of the human cloning, than its supporters. In the specific case with Ruth I tend to find another way out, which probably will sound harsh but ultimately will appear to me more ethical and correct. From the point of view of evolution, the process of cloning may eliminate one of the most important advantages of sexual reproduction. This reproduction is some kind of a game, in which the two DNA are mixed in an unpredictable and arbitrary manner. In cloning, there are no additional attributes added to the new individual, and thus the process of evolution is practically stopped. But Ruth does not want to take part in evolution, she wants to live, and this will be impossible, if she has no new bone marrow. The fact remains unchanged - it may last for years, until the appropriate transplant is found, and the girl does not have time for waiting. She needs immediate salvation of her problem. I may point out several main objections against cloning Ruth. First of all, there has been done no human cloning before, and Ruth may become just an experiment, or a part of the game, fulfilling the same role as it has been with Dolly the sheep. There is the confidence, that cloning will be successful despite the doctor's statements. Though the case with Dolly was successful, but there had to be tried 242 recipients, before there was any progress. Will this be possible with Ruth, and is she able to wait until cloning succeeds Second, growing an organ for Ruth may also take some time, and doctors don't know for how long she will stay in remission. In this situation it will be even better to look for the donor child, whose characteristics will be similar to Ruth's ones. Third, if the clone is created only to become a donor, how will this stand from the moral point of view Of course, human life is the biggest value, and it is even possible to accept the thought, that human life may be saved through loosing some other human life. But is it ethical to save human life through intentional killing another life, as its destruction was meant from the very beginning There are also no guarantees, that the bone marrow of the clone will be 100% suitable for Ruth, and thus there may be two lives lost. There is also another probability. If the cloning is successful, and the child lives a full life, how big is the chance that his parents will forget about him being abnormal Won't this thought eat them from inside and thus put psychological and moral pressure on him, even bearing in mind that he was able to save their daughter Remembering that children are often very cruel towards each other, will this cloned girl be able to adjust to her surrounding and be taken as a usual child I can hardly imagine this. This case is similar with adopted children - their step-parents often conceal the fact of adoption, not to make their child an object of mocking at school. What I think, is that the best way out for Gwen and Brent will be to give birth to another child. It may sound cruel, but not much can be done in terms of leukemia, and as there are no suitable transplants for Ruth, the best thing parents can do for her is to relieve her pain and sufferings. Losing a child is the worst thing that may happen to parents, and at times they are ready to perform unreasonable deeds to save him (or her). One of such unreasonable deeds may become cloning of Ruth. We have already discussed all ethical problems of cloning. The objections are more than evident. And having another child will help parents direct all their love on the other object, which will be absolutely normal and has all chances to be born without any diseases. The fear of parents to have another ill child is psychologically understandable, but it is better than cloning. The pain for loosing Ruth will decrease with time, and the newly born child will become the main aim of life for both parents. There are also ethical questions, concerning IVF and the fate of the embryos in case parents change their mind and decide not to use them. The main ethical question here is when the life of the child begins - does it begin from the moment of conception or later during woman's pregnancy The process of IVF itself does not seem something negative to me, because it gives people possibility to have children in case they have health problems. But there should be developed a strict policy in terms of the embryos, which are not going to be used. There must exist some definite way of dealing with these embryos. I may suggest the following: the process of IVF is very expensive, and the unused embryos, if they are healthy, may be used for helping those people, who cannot afford it. Thus the lives of many embryos will be preserved. Both cloning and IVF raise questions in terms of ethics, and it is difficult to make a right choice when one speaks about saving human lives. The opponents of IVF say that if a woman is not capable of having a child, it is her fate and there is nothing she can do. Some suppose that this process interrupts with natural selection, which may lead to the national genofond of the nation. Many women are also concerned by the fate of the embryo, which during certain period exists in the environment. The question relating to when the life of the child begins is still open, and different doctors and scientists have different attitudes towards this problem. From the medical point of view, it is supposed that during the first 14 days the embryo is not able to experience pain or other emotions, and thus is not capable of carrying any moral status, thus it may be frozen and used for further purposes. But it is possible that in future these positions will be revised. As far as at present time both questions are considered ambiguous, and no state has developed any official policy or opinion as for IVF embryos and cloning, every person is to decide for himself, what these phenomena mean and what moral consequences they may cause. But it is probable the IVF will become the process which will save the humanity from degeneration. There is one more aspect in terms of the cloned child. In the modern world it is very difficult to conceal anything, especially when it concerns such serious things as cloning. Who will give any guarantees, that the cloned child won't become the center of new political, moral and ethical scandal, which will make the rest of his life unbearable He will have to carry the stamp 'cloned' till the end of his life, which can lead to unpredictable consequences. I don't think that Ruth's parents are ready to see one more child suffer. Fully understanding the wish of Gwen and Brent to save Ruth, it should be noted, that this is not the ground for making experiments with cloning. They should better concentrate on looking for a suitable transplant for Ruth and on thinking about having one more child. Cloning will always be a matter of ethical and moral arguments, as it touches the sacred sphere of human life - giving birth to children. This act has always been supposed to be special and unique. Cloning will make children products of the number of technical processes, giving the possibility to plan the characteristics of the small human, thus giving no space for variations. There will pass many years before scientists are ready to clone a human, and there should be found a reasonable middle between cloning and killing hundreds of embryos to achieve success. Strict regulations, laws and bans for reproductive cloning should exist. Cloning should not become a commercial act, and should be aimed strictly at curing diseases, which can't be cured by other means. In other words, cloning should not become the aim itself, but should rather be aimed at saving other people's lives. Though, at present time, it is hard to say, whether cloning will become mass phenomenon. It is also possible to understand, what Ruth' parents feel, thinking of loosing her and having no possibility to save her life. I have tried to prove, that cloning is not the only way out in the described situation. The subject of cloning is still ambiguous in many aspects. Of course, it's up to Ruth's parents, which choice they will make, but it is important to make them look at the problem in the other light. Of course, no one wants Ruth to die, but no one also wants to have two deaths and feel then guilty in both of them. It is clear that chemotherapy has given no positive results, and in case no transplant is found, all her parents will have to do, will be to reconcile with the situation, no matter how cruel this may sound. Having another child will help them to forget pain and sorrow, and to start everything from the very beginning. Of course, this child won't be a copy of Ruth, probably it will be a boy, but he will still bring more happy moments into Gwen and Brent's lives, than this may be done by cloning. May be it is better to say that giving birth to a new child will bring more positive emotions than those negative consequences which cloning may cause. Life is everything and it is difficult to lose it, but it is even more difficult to watch live people suffer from moral and physical defects, which may happen by cloning. Works Cited Bernstein, Judith et al. "Overseeing Research on Therapeutic Cloning: A Private Ethics Board Responds to Its Critics." The Hastings Center Report 32 (2002): 27-40. Kass, Leon R. The Ethics of Human Cloning. Washington: American Enterprise Institute, 1998. Read More