Ethical Issues in Human Cloning - Report Example

Homework assignment #3 18 April Ethical Issues in Human Cloning Introduction Human cloning is perhaps one of the most complex subjects to discuss in ethical studies. Most stakeholders believe that scientific work should be curtailed if it presents an imminent health risk to the public. However, Mark notes that human cloning does not fall neatly in this category (15). Not only is this type of science a source of reproductive aid, it can also be treated as a method of procreation in and of itself. It may also be a source of stem cells and tissues designed to cure chronic diseases. To some individuals this practice is a method of human design while others may think of it as a human experiment. When analyzed against an ethical lens, it is clear that human cloning oversteps scientific boundaries by destabilizing social and moral structures in society. Whether human cloning ethical Perhaps one of the deepest concerns about human cloning is its ability to undermine social structures like the family. New age thinking questions the very relevance of procreation in sexuality. Post modernists believe that sex need not be for reproductive purposes. In fact, modern conceptions of the family, such as single parent homes or gay relationships, have now gained widespread acceptance. Cloning takes these ideas a step further by completely delineating reproduction from any sexual process. Babies coming from this process do not need male and female input (Ferreira, 219). The primary problem with these progressive ideas is that they support the belief that all children should be wanted. Therefore, unwanted babies should not be born or come into existence. In fact, such justifications were used to support abortion. Through cloning, human beings largely focus on what they want in children. People do not see themselves as part of their traditions or ancestors since they have the propensity to self determine their offspring. This further perpetuates individualism and narcissistic behavior. Self cloning undermines kinship ties and familial structures, which often promote stable homes. Even children who come from such unions will struggle with identity issues as they may wonder whether they really have a father and mother. They will have ambiguous relationships with their donors and thus develop psychological problems concerning their identity. Cloning may undermine the social foundations that cause stability in society. The above argument is supported by deontological theories of ethics. People have a moral duty to do what is right irrespective of how they feel about it or the perceived consequences. Parents who choose cloning often do so for some personal gains rather than their moral duty to raise children properly. This obscures ill motives away from the equation and only emphasizes the gains. Perhaps another disconcerting issue is the infringement of individuals’ autonomy. Cloning gives human beings an extra-ordinary level of determinism as they are able to decide exactly how their offspring will turn out (Kass and Wilson, 33). This may be a problem because a third party has determined the genetic makeup of the children. Human genes are randomly selected by nature, even for twins. No third party decides that they will have twins or chooses how they appear. Cloning allows people to do so, and thus abuses the clone’s autonomy. This comes in the way of their human dignity. Virtue –based ethics states that people should strive to become virtuous by showing those qualities. Respecting human dignity through provision of autonomy is what will lead to this situation. In medicine, professionals are obligated to refrain from practices that may cause harm to patients. Likewise, in science, practices that could be biologically harmful ought to be treated with plenty of caution. Studies have shown that cloning predisposes higher primates like monkeys to severe abnormalities. Scientists who have worked on sheep and goats have shown that they are predisposed to abortions, health problems and death of the clone after birth. Even the famed Dolly-the-sheep died only six months after birth (McGee, 1998). This sheep had lung diseases and arthritis; diseases that are found in older sheep. Others have yielded more successful outcomes than the latter. Regardless, those that have tried to work with monkeys have failed dismally. Mark and Wilson explain that primates are particularly difficult to clone (55). Monkeys and human beings lack certain proteins that are crucial in the cloning process. As a result, their embryos appear normal in the early stages but often fail to develop. Genetic confusion manifests in these species as some of them may have more than twice the number of chromosomes that normal offspring have or their embryonic cells could combine wrongly with one another. Scientists have noted that humans and monkey lack proteins in the cell spindle, which is responsible for chromosome guidance in other less complex species. Therefore, chromosomes move randomly throughout the cell, and no development may occur. Other animals like cows and rabbits have also reported abnormally large organs and other problematic health features. This implies that the technology creates a number of health risks among offspring. Human experimentation is something that several individuals frown upon. Virtue ethics and deontological theories all advocate for respect for human life. Science has the ability to manipulate life and how it is understood. When cloning mammals, failure rates of about 90% may be reported. A geneticist may have to implant about 200 embryos in an ewe in order to get 13 of them to develop fully into sheep (Mark, 54). These high morbidity rates are simply unacceptable for humans. Another moral predicament that arises is what to do with surplus embryos after performing reproductive cloning. Not all embryos can be implanted in the potential parent. Some scientists argue that these embryos can be stored and used for research. However, not all of them are used for this purpose (Silver, 24). Most such embryos may be destroyed, yet this poses serious moral issues. Several analysts disagree over the value of embryos and whether they should be treated in the same way as other humans. A typical embryo differs from a sperm and egg because it has DNA which can make it grow into a full human being. Likewise, a cloned embryo is a symbol of life since it has all the biological predispositions needed to develop life. If cloning becomes a legal practice, it may undermine the value of life by encouraging the destruction of embryos. Human-cloning supporters may assert that the above arguments all depend on man’s perception of genes as being the only determinants of autonomy, individuality and hence dignity (Silver, 17). These scholars may claim that it takes more than just genetics to define an individual. Instead, they blame social expectations and pressure for any psychological problems that may manifest in the child. However, they fail to realize that other social influences can be rejected and accepted by children, yet one’s genes cannot. The job of determining one’s genetic constitution ought to be determined by nature rather than another single human being. This takes away choice and is quite selfish for those who do it. Others have also stated that regardless of the abnormalities that may arise from human cloning, it is still likely that a lot of other benefits can be enjoyed by humans through human cloning for research purposes. Rolef explains that these benefits should be given precedence over the value of the embryo (46). The author believes that since no subject exists to make a claim over the embryo, then no violations of rights have taken place. However, this consequentialist attitude reduces blueprints for life as a means to an end. In fact, this is the problem with utilitarian principles; they focus so much on outcomes that they allow small evils to be committed for the greater good. Other ways of scientific progress are available, so focusing only on the greater good is deontologically wrong. It places the value of scientific progress over and above the worth of what could be a human life. Conclusion Human cloning undermines structures in society that make it stable. It weakens the family unit by encouraging self-determination. The practice poses considerable risks on humans and downplays the value of human life in the form of embryos. Clone’s autonomy and hence dignity are disregarded in this technique. Essentially, the scieince is too utilitarian, and does not respect virtues and deontological duties that are attached to creation of life. Works Cited. Dudley, W. The ethics of human cloning. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 2001. Print. Ferreira, M. A. I am the other: literary negotiations of human cloning. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2005. Print. Mark, T. Human cloning policy considerations. Washington, D.C.: Presidents Council on Bioethics. 2002, Print. Kass, L., & Wilson, J. Q. The ethics of human cloning. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 1998. Print. McGee, G. The human cloning debate. Berkeley, Calif.: Berkeley Hills Books, 1998. Print. Roleff, T. L. Cloning. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Print. Mark, T. Scientific aspects of human and animal cloning. Washington, D.C.: Presidents Council on Bioethics, 2006. Print. Silver, L. M. Remaking Eden: cloning and beyond in a brave new world. New York: Avon Books, 1997. Print. Silver, L. M. Challenging Nature: the clash between biotechnology and spirituality. New York: Harper Perennial, 2007. Print. Read More