Could human cloning ever be justified?

[potwalloper.]

In the Monash Bioethics Review [2000; 19(2): 34-45.] DR Richard Ashcroft and PROF UDO SCHÜKLEN wrote:

We have shown that reproductive cloning, therapeutic cloning, stem cell research and stem cell technologies present “no harms and many benefits”. We believe that a lot of the so-called debate in this area is merely hysteria, because on closer examination these technical advances represent no new issues. We can translate all of them back into issues arising in more familiar, ethically well-understood, and well-regulated contexts...we believe that our common interests in liberty, respect for persons, and medical advance require us to promote these new technologies rather than preventing them on what we have shown are entirely spurious grounds.

The debate over theraputic and reproductive cloning in humans is often presented in the media as a classical confrontation between religion and science.

Do you consider this to be misleading?

Do you support or oppose cloning due to your religious beliefs or other ethical considerations?

Could the cloning of humans ever be justified - if so in what context?

[Corvus]

I think that you are missing my point. There is no way to ensure the saftey and viability of cloning without trying it. So assuming there is a desire to try it, we find test parents. We get them to sign a waiver to say "this is your child". Now after that we make a clone that ends up having no arms and no legs, a weak and failing heart and every autoimmune disease imaginable. Plus, severe deformities and retardation. Or even worse, it is a heart and a nevous system covered in skin, a blob of life. Is this human? Should it be kept alive through medical means like any other human? Will the parents still take care of it? Now we all understand that this was a test-baby, and mistakes will happen in test-runs. But where to we draw the line between a blob of life and a human?

Of course I am not arguing for human cloning to be made legal immediately, and I think a moratorium on all human cloning is perhaps the best option until scientists gain a more intimate understanding of the process via extensive testing and research on, say, animals. But even when we feel they are sufficiently capable of creating a human clone, and a mistake does happen, I do not believe it raises any more questions than would a similarly disadvantaged child. They are essentially the same, after all, even if the method of bringing it about is singular.

Is your objection to cloning based on the riskiness of the procedure alone?

The silliest part about it is we would be doing this out of our affinty to consumerism. This is not a car, where you pick the color and features. It is a human, or is it? Why bother with this question? Clones are only a product of our vanity. I don't want a copy of me, I think I would annoy myself too much. I believe you may be missing the point on what a clone or cloning is. It is not just a pregnancy, it's a copy

That's a strange thing to say. Clones are only genetic copies. The most accurate description I can come up with is that they are belated identical twins separated at birth, so their personalities would be completely different to the person who donated the necessary material, though I suppose it's possible their temperament is similar. Ordinary children are fusions of the genetic qualities of their parents, and occasionally we see children who have a startling resemblance to one of their parents. Clones are much like this, only moreso.

I also completely disagree clones are solely the products of our vanity. Jose provided one scenario, and I will provide two more from a page on the ethics of cloning.

In its report to the President, the Commission imagined a few situations in which people might avail themselves of cloning. In one scenario, a husband and wife who wish to have children are both carriers of a lethal recessive gene:

<i>Rather than risk the one in four chance of conceiving a child who will suffer a short and painful existence, the couple considers the alternatives: to forgo rearing children; to adopt; to use prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion; to use donor gametes free of the recessive trait; or to use the cells of one of the adults and attempt to clone a child. To avoid donor gametes and selective abortion, while maintaining a genetic tie to their child, they opt for cloning.</i>

In another scenario, the parents of a terminally ill child are told that only a bone marrow transplant can save the child's life. "With no other donor available, the parents attempt to clone a human being from the cells of the dying child. If successful, the new child will be a perfect match for bone marrow transplant, and can be used as a donor without significant risk or discomfort. The net result: two healthy children, loved by their parents, who happen [sic] to be identical twins of different ages."

[youngborean]

Is your objection to cloning based on the riskiness of the procedure alone?

Riskiness in the fact that we cannot ensure safety without making mistakes. It's more than a risk it is a definite reality of progress. I think the first example you made is still based on vanity and it would be irresponsible since the clone would still be a recessive carrier. The second example assumes sucess, and ingores the cost of getting sucess. You say that it doesn't raise any more questions than a similarly disadvantaged child. However, I don't think you are looking at the situation realistically. Let's say the parents you propose opt to clone and there is a mistake. They are paying to get rid of mistakes. So what now? They don't want the kid and who takes care of it?

But even before all of that there has to be test cases. It only makes sense. Somewhere life has to begin, and if a mistake happens after that point, will those scientists be murders or researchers? If we set the precedent that at points along the way it is ok to lose a test-embryo here and there then when will we judge life assuming these births would be invitro? We cannot jump from animals to humans as you suggest without having clear guildlines for these procedures. Your position assumes that the sucess is already here. But then you also have to assume that getting sucess will inevitably come at cost. Not a risk that might not happen, a real cost. That cost is way to much for me to take with no assurance that the end result will be as positive as you claim.

Even now creating a sucessful clone starts with many (Dolly took 300) potential embryos. So we grow these embryos, when do we pull the plug? Do you see the grey area? I am fine with an argument that embryos are not alive, but when is it not ok to terminate for undesirable results. And if it's not ok after a certain point, then what do we do with the 3, 10, or at worst 30+ extra children we have made without even ensuring that the radical procedure we are proposing will work? I just don't see a viable way of this happening. Yes it would be wonderful if we could just grab new bone marrow for this child, but it is a fairy tale that researchers are proposing to get more money.

[Nyril]

My final project in my college NHV class was a case study involving Human Cloning. If anyone would be interested, I could probably be moved to e-mail them a copy. It only got 210 points out of 250, but my conclusion was that there was no reasonable objection as of yet referenced that was sufficient to support a ban.

[Tigerlilly]

I would have to say that I think it should be legalized for certain procedures as they become available. Personally, I think that the good of the many overrides the good of the few, especially when the good of the few makes reference to a fetus or embryo, which I consider human, but not a moral agent/person.

In order to be a moral agent worthy of rights to respect, it should at least have something that can distinguish itself from other animals, which, according to Peter Singer and myriad other Bioethicist, they don't have.

Rationality, Autonomy, and IQ are important in this, for if they are severely weak or non-existence, then the Fetus really has no real right to life any more so than that of a common house pet or another sentient/semi-sapien animal.

For example, there are many brain-damaged fetuses and babies (even after birth) who have such a low IQ that it's lower than that of a CAT, and since they have virtually no autonomy, although more than a fetus, they have no distinguishing qualities to them, save for the fact that they are Human.

Being Human, I don't believe is a good reason to take the Fetus over the Cat, especially when that Fetus can be used for tremendous potential in other people and scientific progress.

The same position would apply in other fields like Euthanasia, for example, or even abortion.

The potential benefit, which is very real, benefits far more real Humans who are born than it would people who were never born and who have never experienced and who aren't autonomous creatures. The Fetus is little more, quite crassly, than a Parasitical organism that has the potential to grow into a born human.

[Jose]

Totally agree. But isn't that the problem with this mess? We have so many people out there saying what they want without really thinking about what that would look like or mean. I can see stem cell technology eventually being effective, but lets get some real data first and then make very specific denfintions about acceptable science.

The trick is getting the data. There just are not adequate cell lines, regardless of what Bush said when he limited research to existing lines. He made up the numbers. So, we need new embyros, but can't get them with federal funding--the usual source of medical research $$. That's why California voted to fund the research with non-Federal money. Until the research has been done, there's no information--just speculation.

Can it cure AIDS? I dunno. I could imagine bone marrow transplants from CD4- donors (stem cells from said donors) being potentially possible. It might require serious chemotherapy first, to kill the infected cells, but it might work. Adult cells might be fine for that.

Can we cure Alzheimers? I dunno. We need neurogenic cell lines to be able even to test it. We also need a mouse model to work with first--but how do you figure out whether mice have lost their short-term memory? the Alzheimer's guys probably know some test or other...

Basically, stem cells can differentiate into cell types, tissues and organs. That's it. Replacement of livers damaged by phen-fen, or kidneys damaged by E. coli H7:O157, or brain cells damaged by degenerative disease...these kinds of things seem potentially possible. They are a long way off, though. The techniques all have to be tested in animal models first, then the human stem cells have to be ready to use--which means a lot of testing of conditions to produce not only stem cell lines, but also conditions to induce differentiation into specific cell types. That's a lot of work, but with potentially big payoff.

You're right, though, that people say "it will cure X" and then name the current Bad Disease that's in vogue. I guess that's the nature of debates that get politicized--they are rapidly polarized into black and white, with hyperbole on both sides. Why can't we just sit down and talk about the issues, rather than make it black-hats vs white-hats? Human nature, I guess.

Real cloning, though--producing adults--has many nefarious possibilities. I think we're better off making reproductive cloning Unacceptable. Hmmm...I can think of nothing worse than raising myself as a kid! I was horrid! I'd hate to see how I'd turn out if I were raised in today's schools with today's perils.

[Tigerlilly]

Real cloning, though--producing adults--has many nefarious possibilities. I think we're better off making reproductive cloning Unacceptable. Hmmm...I can think of nothing worse than raising myself as a kid! I was horrid! I'd hate to see how I'd turn out if I were raised in today's schools with today's perils.

Well. I don't think the child, even if he were identical to you, would have the same personality. Personality is both genetic and environmental, so he could be very well different.

Identical Twins, for example, are basically like clones, yet they don't have the exact personality. They are unique in that regard.

Even if you had a clone of yourself (which i see nothign wrong with intrinsically), it wouldn't be just like you.