The Ethical Dilemma of Human Cloning
“Life is a test and this world a place of trial. Always the problems – or it may be the same problem- will be presented to every generation in different forms.”
Winston Churchill
The ethical dilemma of human cloning primarily lies on the debate whether it is right or wrong using as basis, the moral standards set by contemporary society. The issue of cloning a human being was brought to the public’s attention when the news broke out about the successful cloning of a sheep named “Dolly” by Ian Wilmut, a Scottish scientist from Roslin Institute in Scotland on July 5, 1996 (United States National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2001).
To best understand the ethical dilemma of cloning a human being is to hear both sides of the story. The advocates and the opponents belong to two clashing groups of people that base their reasons on the line of a great argumentation. Further deliberations on the issue have stirred national interest all over the world and has even merited the attention of national governments. For example, US President Bill Clinton had instituted a ban on US federal funding related to attempts to clone human beings (United States National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2001).
The process with which “Dolly” has been created is called “somatic cell nuclear transfer” where in the doctors take the egg from the donor and remove the nucleus of the egg, creating an enucleated egg. A “cell” which contains the DNA is then taken from the person who is being cloned, and then the enucleated egg is fused together with the cloning subject’s cell using electricity and thus creating an embryo, which is implanted into a surrogate mother (Bonsor, ). If the process is successful, then the surrogate mother will give birth to a baby. However, the procedure itself is not perfect because it took more than 277 attempts before Dolly was created as a health viable lamb (Virginia edu, 1998). It only imposes that there are possible risks or biological damages to the potential child with the process, which is considered as a “reproductive” cloning because it replicates a copy of a human (Dooley, 2001).
The process itself is one of the many reasons why there are people against human cloning who also question the ethics of doing it. Due to this arising conflicts between the advocates and the opponents, then US President Clinton asked the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) to resolve the ethical and legal issues that revolve around the subject of cloning human beings using “somatic cell nuclear transfer” and its potential risks and benefits (United States National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2001).
The great concerns of the opposing group lie on the safety of the process, its consequences and the fear that the clone would not be considered as an “individual” but just a mere “copy” of someone else. However, the advocates of human cloning stated clearly that even if a clone is just a “copy”, it doesn’t mean that he (or she) is not an “individual.” A clone is defined as the delayed identical twin. He may have the same genes as the original but he is still a different person biologically, psychologically, morally and legally (and that even includes even his fingerprints (Wachbroit, ).
The ethical concerns of the issue, in my own point of view, as I went through thorough readings and analysis of the subject, is not actually the morality per se, but the reasons and purposes behind the attempts to clone a human. The advocates firmly believe that the use of cloning human would give medical breakthroughs to find cures of some diseases like cancer, AIDS and other incurable illnesses. They stated the possibility of controlling the growth of cancer cells or discover the cause of other kinds of diseases as well. On the other hand, the opponents fear that if ever the ban on human cloning will be lifted, allowing scientists to freely perform the process and somehow the process becomes successful, the desire to manipulate or control the clones will most likely happen. These musings however are mostly speculations. However, with so much controversy with regard to the issue, no one can really tell.
The “fears” of the opponents and the “beneficial reasons” of the advocates have turned a debatable subject into the more complicated issue of whether cloning a human being is right or wrong. Where in fact the ethical dilemma is not hard to understand at all, for it’s just that the factors involving the issue – the risks, consequences, reasons, intentions and benefits of human cloning – are what makes it hard for an individual to comprehend its ethics and legality.
The opponents believe that it is “morally wrong” because what they are trying to do is making a life out of a scientific procedure which is still morally unacceptable today. In other words, scientists are trying to “play God”. No matter if we have different religions or beliefs, we have been brought up believing that the only provider of life is none other than God himself. Conversely, the advocates of human cloning argue that what they are trying to do is to seek beneficial opportunities for the human race through the use of science and technology – among them, finding cures to some diseases with “therapeutic” cloning, which would intentionally destroy newly created embryonic cells of the cloned humans for other research projects (Dooley, ). The intention of this kind of research is to find cures for some diseases using the embryonic cells of the cloned humans which only means killing eventually the newly created life of the embryo for the purpose of saving ill patients.
The morally questionable issue is the process itself and how cheap the doctors value the life that is formed in that embryo. Opponents to cloning argue that no matter if that is only a cell that they are willing to sacrifice, it has already a life that has a right of existence. Considering that cloning a human could become legal and likewise be morally acceptable sooner in human society, then how could we possibly protect the rights and dignity of the cloned humans, if today we can’t even give them the rights to live when they are being used as experiments in medical researches.
With respect to social responsibility, the ethical dilemma of human cloning can be considered a lesser evil if compared to the other problems in society. Being a very opinionated person myself, I believe that there are more important problems in society that need more attention rather than keeping in tune with the moral disputes of the opposing parties of human cloning.
I do not detest the possibility of cloning a human someday but I strongly believe that a family where the clone would come shoulders a great responsibility in rearing the child no matter if he (or she) is considered to be just a “copy” or “delayed twin” of the original being cloned. The fact that everyone deserves to live even if he (or she) came from cloning is a truth that no one can oppose. It should however be discussed in a very careful manner bestowing concern on the future and existence of the cloned person.
Hence, the major problem that would threaten the creation of human clones is anchored on the process itself and on the greater risks and consequences of the procedure. Nowadays, the technology in human cloning is still considered to be premature and might impose a lot of imperfections on the research and experiments.
Another thing that I personally fear and doubt on human cloning is the possibility of “bringing the dead back to life.” It gives me a creepy feeling because I believe in the presence of the soul in a human being. If scientists do try to clone a dead human and bring them back to life, it will only open more Pandora’s boxes on other pressing moral issues. And if they somehow, successfully clone a human being already dead, would this clone of a dead person possess the presence of a soul? Would it mean that man is already defying the capabilities that only the Supreme Being used to possess? Would it already be considered a sin? And how about other corollary questions like the possibility of life after death and the presence of heaven or hell? If man could already clone a dead person and bring back its life then, perhaps we can no longer answer these questions because we might not experience anymore how to die permanently because we can live as long as we want to. So many questions are raised just by the thought of cloning humans, what more if the human being to be cloned is already dead and could eventually be brought back to life?
On the side of the opponents and critics of human cloning, I can see how much these people value the essence of life made through natural, God-given ways and not as objects processed through advanced methods in science and technology. I understand how they want to protect the sanctity and morality of life by standing firmly against the advocates of human cloning. They want to preserve and protect human life. The fact that biotechnology can make breakthroughs without cloning a human being or sacrificing an embryonic cell created through human cloning is more appealing. Scientists, doctors and advocates of human cloning should at least refrain from pushing the idea of cloning a human being, and instead, concentrate on improving biotechnologies that could further lengthen human life. Opponents of human cloning believe that the procedure is inhuman, including the Scottish scientist who created Dolly. Ian Wilmut believes that most of his fellow scientists misunderstood his studies because so many of them are now trying desperately to use the techniques he used in cloning Dolly to clone a human being.
Being just a mere opinion giver on the tackled issue, I presume that even if there are people who agree or disagree with me, the possibility of cloning a human in the very near future is highly inevitable, whether the intentions are beneficial to man or are solely for the narcissistic reasons of madmen.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment