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.”
Churchill
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
on July 5, 1996 (United States National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2001).
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.
instituted a ban on US federal funding related to attempts to clone human
beings (United States National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2001).
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).
process itself is one of the many reasons why there are people against human
cloning who also question the ethics of doing it.
advocates and the opponents, then
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, ).
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 coulc 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.
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.
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.
sanctity and morality of life by standing firmly against the advocates of human
cloning. They want to preserve and protect human life.
breakthroughs without cloning a human being or sacrificing an embryonic cell
created through human cloning is more appealing.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment