The Possibility of Cloning Human Beings - Coursework Example

Running head: Cloning Research – Cloning Insert Insert Grade Insert 05 July Recent development in medical science and technology has made it possible for the cloning of animals and plants and the possibility of cloning human beings is now a reality. These developments have raised serious ethical and religious arguments against the legalization of cloning. Reproductive cloning allows the reproduction of a whole organism using somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) while therapeutic cloning produces embryonic stem cells, which can be used for treatment. The possibility and ability of human cloning makes me oppose cloning for all purposes. Even with prohibitory legislation on research and development of human cloning, there is a very big possibility that unethical researchers would illegally clone human beings with unknown consequences. The successful cloning of dolly, the sheep, makes it viable for technology to replicate this technology on humans and there are various experiments exploring the use of various human tissues and organs for the treatment of certain diseases. Cloning technology makes it possible for the use of human tissue and their organs for medical experiments that violate human dignity. Despite existing regulations prohibiting human cloning, these experiments are carried out in highly sophisticated and secretive laboratories that cannot be effectively monitored by government agencies. The legalization of reproduction of human beings and their organs through cloning technologies would lead to the loss of respect for life. Cloning would enable genetic enhancement of the human beings which would reduce the natural variation and uniqueness of the human race. Genetically enhanced clones will poses superior characteristics that would place them above normal human beings as they can be engineered to have more disease resistance, intellectual capacity, and athletic capabilities. These technologies offer the possibility of prolonging life through stem cell therapies that can successfully regenerate tissues already degenerated by disease or the ageing process (Corrigan et al., 2005). The social repercussions of life prolonging treatments are unknown and would be highly negative based on the rapid rise of the global population. Immortal populations would make the available resources scarce and unable to sustain the human population. Such treatments would also be very expensive and only available to the super rich, and hence human equity would be lost. The loss of human equity would also translate to the loss of respect and dignity for human life especially the vulnerable poor. The ability to choose the type and characteristics of the human person a parent wants at the beginning of life would dehumanize the society putting the vulnerable members of the society, including the disabled and the aged, at risk (Young, 2000). Reproductive cloning technology would also require a lot of human embryos that can lead to increased demand and pressure on females to sell or donate their eggs, which is unethical. Commercialization of cloning technology would also be highly possible and would only be available to the rich who would have children with higher intellectual, physical, and social characteristics than other people. This would give them undue advantages in life leaving normal children with minimal chances of a success future. A lot of human embryos would constantly be required for research and cloning purposes and some would be destroyed in the course of the process. This is wrong because human embryos should be offered the same respect and dignity as human beings (Pontifical Academy For life, 2000). The human embryos have the moral status of a human being and using them for research, where they are subjected to various dehumanizing treatments and discarded, violates their dignity. I believe that the human embryo is a would-be creature and should be protected and respected as a normal human being. Human clones would lack individuality and uniqueness as they are reproduced from already existing human beings genomes. They would be limited by the characteristics of their genetic donors and would not have the freedom to self-direct their lives. This is because some people would clone their dead children and spouses and hence the clones would be obligated to behave and develop the individuality and identity of their genetic donors. This is morally wrong as the human clones would not have the right to have their unique individuality and identity. The parents and the society would regard people cloned into society as replacements, and they would be required to fill the void left by the dead (Levick, 2004). They would be subjected to various psychological and social pressures to conform; making them lose their uniqueness and identity as they try to copy and imitate their predecessor’s life. They would be faced with the possibility of rejection by the families who brought them into being and society and it is impossible to determine what should be done if such a situation arises. This is intrinsically wrong as it is impossible to get permission from the human clone who is supposed to fill the space left by a dead person, what would happen if such a person refused to be part and parcel of the plan? Without proper identity and with money spent for obtaining the clones, it then follows that the person who paid and supplied the genes for the procedure owns the clone. Then human cloning can reduce human beings into mere commodities to acquire at ones will which would severely reduce human value, respect and dignity. Cloning technology threatens the safety and the health of children and mothers, and there has never been any conclusive evidence that human cloning is safe. Multiple mammalian studies have resulted in damage to the cloned offspring and their surrogate mothers. In animal experiments, very few cloning attempts have resulted in live births with the majority of these experiments resulting in the live born clone dying immediately after birth due to various complications. Most cloned embryos result in abnormal offspring that die soon after birth due to psychological and anatomical problems that vary from species to species with many cloned offspring suffering from the large offspring syndrome, which requires delivery by caesarean section (Gicquel et al., 2003). Cloned mammals have also been found to age prematurely; have immune failures and die spontaneously. In documented histories of cloned mice, it has been found that cloned mice died prematurely with increased chances of suffering from liver damage, tumors and pneumonia than normal mice showing that cloning individuals have to live with numerous health complications until they die (Caplain and McGee, 2004). The high failure rates during cloning of animals means than it would require the production of thousands of human egg for research and would result in very many miscarriages and infant deaths. This is unethical and immoral as the safety of these procedures is not known. Infertile couples wanting to clone a child should utilize any other acceptable assisted reproductive technologies or adopt a child because of the enormous risks cloning has. Due to the high failure rate, it has the potential to cause people severe emotional and psychological pain that is not healthy. It seems logical to conclude that even in if therapeutic and reproductive cloning were legalized and adopted, the resulting cloned children or donor organs would pose significant problems in the society due to health complications. Furthermore, surrogate mothers are subjected to strong hormonal treatments which can make them infertile. Thus, cloning cannot advance human reproduction as its repercussions can be more severe than its benefits. Pioneer human clones would get a lot of publicity which would subject them to severe psychological pressures if their identity is known to the public (Labar, 1984). Rejection by society would make them feel less of human beings, and they may also be targeted by religious conservatives and fanatics. Without clear biological parents, human clones would find it very difficult to get their own identity as they would lack the emotional support and attachment with parents necessary for normal growth and development. With proper emotional development and growth, there is a possibility that most clones would become social deviants with no moral or social responsibilities to the human race and this can be catastrophic to the social peace and harmony. Their lives would always be haunted by their origin and would not experience the love bestowed to people bestowed to naturally born children. This is because they would lack kinship attachments and conventional relationships between biological and social parenthood. The clone and their alleged parent would lack the social identity and relationship created and established by natural sexual reproduction that results in a genetic relationship (Kass, 1997). Human clones would thus lack the love and protection children are given by their parents, and it would be very difficult for the human clones to avoid feeling unnatural by virtue of their asexual reproduction and the effects of this are unknown. The human society has a penchant for identifying and marginalizing people based on perceived and real differences. It is then possible that if human clones were produced they would be prejudiced and victimized by the society because of their origin. Marginalization would make it hard for them to be socialized in the society and they would be regarded as lesser human beings. Such mentalities have resulted in great inhumanities and injustices being committed against groups of people regarded as inferior and this may happen to human clones, as well. In therapeutic cloning, a person would be able to clone an identity copy of himself, which would enable him obtain acceptable organ and tissue matches with reduced risk of transplant rejection by the host (Harris, 1992). This is inherently immoral and evil and totally degrading to the sanctity of human dignity and life. Developing a human clone for therapeutic purposes would deny the cloned human being consciousness for the selfish benefit of the host. If this practice is accepted, then it is possible for people to be cloned without their permission if they process special qualities for the benefit of others which would ultimately translate into more profits. Cloning someone who had a special meaning would not replace that individual. This is largely shaped by the environment and his experiences. It is not possible to replicate the particular relationships, attachments, and experiences with the clone. Even if the clone is subjected to the same environment as the person replaced, which is highly impossible, it would develop differently and share a different history with persons who brought it into being (Thomas, 1974). Thus, it would be better for the affected families and parents to move on after losing a loved one especially a child, a clone would always remind them of their loss and may prevent successful healing and acceptance. In conclusion, Cloning is tantamount to tinkering with life, which is ethically and intrinsically wrong as it involves manipulation. If human cloning is legalized then human uniqueness and variation would be lost forever, and, after some period, all humans would be equal and process similar characteristics. This would pose very many challenges in the society as the human ideals and principles of love, family and compassion would be lost. Losing the human persona, freedom and individuality would constitute losing the meaning and purpose of life and because life would lose value and respect. Cloning would also industrialize human beings and animals and people with the best characteristics would be sold for the highest price. This is morally wrong and would make the society lose cohesion and unity. The world’s media institutions and organizations should call upon all national legislative bodies in the world to ban human, plant and animal cloning because it will bring about the loss of biodiversity. The naturally existing ecological balance is important for a normal ecosystem that is sustainable. The benefits cloning technologies have are achieved at a very high cost, which is not justifiable. Cloning technologies serve no meaningful purposes in the human society, and they can never be wholly accepted by all people. Research has shown that they are not safe to either human beings or animals and should not be employed for medical purposes. There is no need for human clones in the society other than for selfish reasons. Scientists should never be allowed to research and develop human clones under any pretext. References Caplan, A. and McGee, G. (2004). The Human Cloning Debate. Albany: Berkeley Hills Books Corrigan et al., (2005). Ethical legal and social issues in stem cell research and therapy. A briefing paper from Cambridge Genetics Knowledge Park Gicquel et al., (2003). In Vitro Fertilization May Increase The Risk Of Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome Related To The Abnormal Imprinting Of The KCNQ1OT Gene. American Journal of Human Genetics 72, 1338-1341. Harris, J. (1992). Wonder woman and Superman: the Ethics of Biotechnology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kass, R.L. (1985). Toward a More Natural Science. New York: The Free Press. LaBar, M. (1984). The Pros and Cons of Human Cloning. Thought, 57:318-333, Levick, S.E. (2004). Clone Being: Exploring the Psychological and Social Dimensions. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Pontifical Academy for Life (2000). The Holy See, Declaration of Pontifical Academy for Life. In: Opinion No 15 of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission, Ethical Aspects of Human Stem Cell Research and Use, Brussels, 14 November 2000, pp. 156–161. Thomas, L. (1974). Notes of a Biology Watcher: On Cloning a Human Being. N Engl J Med, 291:1296-1297. Young, F.E. (2000). A Time for Restraint. Science, 287: 1424. Read More