Cloning Essay - Grade: A+ PDF

Preview

Summary

Free write essay for Karen Jensen. Freshman Comp 2...

Description

Running head: CLONING

1

Cloning: Double is Trouble Kara Rafuse Freshman Composition II WRC 1023.035 Professor Jensen November 20, 2017

CLONING 2 Cloning: Double is Trouble Twenty years after the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep, the struggle to clone mammals continues in laboratories across the world. This is because of the bans and regulations that have been placed on cloning research that have stemmed from ethical and moral concerns. One of the first conflicts in medical ethics started in ancient Rome when doctors, such as Galen and Hippocrates, began researching the human anatomy through dissections of animals similar to humans because the dissection of humans was prohibited. Due to the almost unanimous social ban of human dissections, the first human dissection was not done until the 16th century. Even though it was protested by many anatomists at that time, today we would not think twice about performing autopsies or using the human body for research. Modern day America is now fraught with arguments over abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, and, more recently, genetic cloning. Despite the benefits of genetic modification and cloning, many people still have an issue with cloning, especially when it comes to ethical and moral principles. Therapeutic cloning has less complications and should be encouraged, but reproductive cloning is still too experimental and should be controlled due to the controversy and negative health effects. The science behind cloning is very complex and is currently a controversial subject all around the world. There are two main types of cloning: therapeutic and reproductive. Reproductive cloning is used to create another organism that is the exact replica of one that already exists or has existed in the past while therapeutic cloning is used to create embryonic stem cells for medical treatments (Lopez 2004). Reproductive cloning is performed using Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, which involves donor eggs and the creation of an embryo. As of now, reproductive cloning has only been used for research purposes, however there are many debates about the future implications. Therapeutic cloning is used for medical treatments such as

CLONING 3 grafts for burn victims, organs for transplant patients, and even cells for people with spinal cord injuries. The procedures used for therapeutic cloning are similar to that of reproductive cloning, however, the embryo is never implanted to create another being. The stem cells are removed, and the embryo dies. Because of the fact that the embryo is killed, many countries do not allow therapeutic cloning because it is viewed as “unnatural” or “barbaric” (Lopez 2004). The argument of whether to allow or prohibit therapeutic cloning could be debated from both sides with the main conflict being how to decide when a being is considered alive. Most Pro-Life supporters argue that a being is considered human after the moment of conception, which creates problems with therapeutic cloning among many religious organizations. When creating embryos, we have to discuss where the eggs are coming from as well. It is debated that donated eggs should not be used for cloning because it could be against the woman’s beliefs and the extraction of the eggs could be harmful to the woman (Aldridge 2012). If donated eggs were being used, the women would have to be informed that their eggs are being used for cloning and they would have to give their consent in order to avoid conflicts with the woman’s morals. As science and technology become more advanced, more people also begin to worry that cloning organs, as well as using embryos and stem cells, will eventually lead to the cloning of complete human beings. Although this is possible, it is highly unlikely due to the amount of problems that occur when trying to create a human clone, including things such as premature birth, young death, and numerous birth defects (Cookson 2013). These problems are the reasons why reproductive cloning is unethical, but therapeutic cloning is helpful in numerous ways and should not be completely restricted. The primary problem when dealing with the ethics of reproductive cloning whether or not creating a sentient being violates human rights. Cloning for reproduction is almost

CLONING 4 universally considered unethical because of the low survival rates, human identity issues, and eugenics. For cloned fetuses, even when implanted into the womb, it has a very low chance of surviving gestation and, if born, has a very high likelihood of having traumatic birth defects (Rugnetta 2016). Because of the high chances of detriment to life, especially human life, many consider reproductive cloning highly unethical. One might argue that reproductive cloning is not much different from in vitro fertilization, but when looking at survival rates between cloning humans, or even animals, embryos and in vitro fertilization, it is clear that reproductive cloning has much higher chances of infant death and of being born “abnormal”. Reproductive cloning also raises a problem with human identity and eugenics. Cloning could be used to select certain “desirable” traits to breed “better humans” which leads to controversies in dignity, freedom, and equality (Rugnetta 2016). By means of selecting certain desirable traits we could create a twoclass society in which either, natural birthed humans could be considered inferior or clones could be considered inhuman and put to use as free labor. In respect to therapeutic cloning, some argue against it because it involves the destruction of a human embryo to create the stem cell. Those in support of it argue that it is moral due to the necessity to heal the sick and advance science (Rugnetta 2016). They state that, because the embryo is only in the early stages of life when it is destroyed, younger than the majority of abortions, it should not be considered a being, especially when it could help cure diseases in humans already present and suffering. Regulating cloning in legal terms is challenging because the government must accept the responsibility of balancing the advancement of science with ethics and the possible consequences. As of now, there are no federal laws in the United States pertaining to cloning, but many states have developed their own regulations and bans, most only allowing therapeutic cloning (Nikas and Bordlee 2011). The U.N. has passed an international law stating all

CLONING 5 participating states, “to adopt all measures necessary to prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life,” (Rugnetta 2016). With very few exceptions, it seems that the majority of countries and some states have passed regulatory laws that explicitly prohibit reproductive cloning. To help solve these issues for both sides and to keep the medical field from starting unethical practices, a set of regulations need to be in place by federal governments. The first of these rules would be to keep the eggs of unknowing donors from possibly being used in trials for cloning or other cloning research. It would state that any woman or man who chooses to donate their eggs or sperm would have to sign a release saying that they are informed of the cloning process and give the right for their donations to possibly be used to make advances in the science of cloning. This informed consent gives the donor the right to choose whether or not they would like to support this specific science. This especially helps religious people who are confined by strict rules of conduct by their religion and can only adequately judge whether they want to participate in the procedure if they know all the consequences of it (Escobedo 1993). Secondly, because the psychological wellness of a human clone cannot be judged until after trials have been done on existing beings and because of the severe moral and ethical conflicts that arise when the abnormal creation of humans is considered, a rule should be in place banning the use of cloning to produce a sentient being. While it is possible to predict the psychological outcome of a clone based on studies done on twins, there is no way to make sure that being a clone would not have a substantial amount of harm done to its mental state, therefore making it impossible to allow any sentient clone to be created while still respecting the ethical treatment of a human being (Segal 2006). This rule would also please religious people who may oppose the practice of

CLONING 6 cloning due to its violation of their rules through the creation of an actual mind. With these two basic compromises put in place, the argument against cloning becomes much weaker. As it stands today, if someone is donating any part of themselves for medical research, they must sign consent papers agreeing to the terms in which it can be tested. In the long run, these consent papers would ensure that the amount of donated eggs and sperm would not decrease due to the fear that they may be tested on without the donor’s knowledge and would possibly increase the donation of tissue available for cloning research by people who would not have donated only to in vitro fertilization. Survival rates are very low for any species of cloned being and birth defects are rampant. By not permitting sentient beings to be cloned, new life forms are saved from potential suffering. Perhaps as the field advances, sentient beings will be allowed to be cloned as long as they are not cloned from human beings due to the unknown psychiatric consequences. While this might stifle the growth of the field of cloning, it respects and protects human life, making it the more beneficial choice. Religious affiliations might have issues with funding for cloning being provided by the government from taxes on U.S citizens. However, the possible benefits greatly outweigh any moral issues, especially with the portion of our regulation banning sentience, thus disabling fears on “unnatural births.” Since cloning “violates” the same principles that abortion is said to, it is to be expected that there would be the same protests and arguments against cloning by different religious and pro-life movements, but if cloning is handled in a way that is easily controllable, these movements should not create a substantial barrier to the advancement of cloning technology. By the government regulating cloning with consent and no sentience, it is believed that it will benefit the advancement of science along with creating cures for diseases. With these regulation in place to keep the issues

CLONING 7 surrounding cloning under control, the benefits of this practice would outweigh the possible ethical consequences while still respecting the dignity of a living being.

CLONING 8 References Aldridge, S. (2012). Therapeutic Cloning. Science in Context. Retrieved November 26, 2017 from Gale Cookson, C. (2013, May 15). Scientists in human cloning breakthrough. Financial Times. Retrieved November 26, 2017 from https://www.ft.com/content/0af92ace-bcb2-11e29519-00144feab7de Escobedo, C, Guerrero, J, Lujan, G, Ramirez, A, & Serrano, D. (1993) Ethical Dimensions of Informed Consent. Women’s Health Issues. Retrieved November 27, 2017 from http://www.whijournal.com/article/S1049-3867(05)80225-7/pdf Howard, L. (2016, December 9). Cow Gene Study Shows Why Most Clones Fail. UCDAVIS. Retrieved November 28, 2017 from https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/cow-gene-studyshows-why-most-clones-fail/ Levick, S. (2006, December 01). Psychological Aspects of Human Reproductive Clones: What Can We Infer from the Clone-Like? Psychiatric Times. Retrieved November 26, 2017 from http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/psychological-aspects-humanreproductive-clones-what-can-we-infer-clone Lopez, E. (2004). Three Types of Cloning and the Necessity to Regulate. Science and Education. Retrieved November 28, 2017 from http://www.sciepub.com/reference/103281 Nikas, N, & Bordlee, D. (2011). Human Cloning Laws: 50 State Survey. Bioethics Defense Fund. Retrieved November 27, 2017 from http://bdfund.org/stories/humancloning/

CLONING 9 Rugnetta, M. (2016, February 11). Cloning. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved November 26, 2017 from https://www.britannica.com/science/cloning Sample, I. (2008, June 18). Cloned Immune Cells Cleared Patient's Cancer. The Guardian. Retrieved November 27, 2017 from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jun/19/cancer.science Segal, Nancy. (2006, December 01). Psychological Features of Human Reproductive Cloning: A Twin-Based Perspective. Psychiatric Times. Retrieved November 28, 2017 from http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/psychological-features-human-reproductivecloning-twin-based-perspective...