Answer Happy

This article comes from Lewis Vaughn - Bioethics _
principles, issues, and cases
Referencing with page numbers:
Summarize the article by Brock
provided.
What is an idea from this reading which further supports
the way that biomedical ethical thinking can change the way
that people think about topics such as this one.
How are Brock's comments about cloning relevant to
euthanasia and abortion.
Chapter # Reproductive Technology Cloning Human Beings: An Assessment of the Ethical Issues Pro and Con DAN W BROCK In this essay Brock reviews the arguments for and against human reproductive doning. He maintains that there is probably a right to reproductive freedom that covers human cloning but there could be other rights in conflict with this right or serious enough farms involved to override it. The possible benefits of human doning include the ability to relieve Infertility to avoid transmitting serious geneck disease to offering, and to done someone (such as a child who died) who had special meaning to individuals. Arguments against the practice include that it violates a right to unique identity or to an open future, that it would cause psychological farm to the later twin, that it would carry unacceptable risks for the clone, and that It would lessen the worth of Individuals and diminish respect for human Ife Brock finds little merit in the identity and open-future argumenta but think that human cloning does carry risk of significant harms, although most of the harms that people lear we based on common misconceptions The world of science and the public at large were reflections on the issues. Such reactions should not both shocked and fascinated by the announcement be simply dismissed, both because they may point in the journal Nature by Ian Wilmut and his col us to important considerations otherwise missed leagues that they had successfully closed a sheep and not easily articulated, and because they often from a single cell of an adult sheep (Wilmut. 1997) have a major impact on public policy. But the for But many were troubled or apparently even horri- mation of public policy should not ignore the moral fied at the prospect that cloning of adult humans by reasons and arguments that bear on the practice of the same process might be possible as well. There human cloning these must be articulated in order sponse of most scientific and political leaders to the to understand and inform people's more immediate prospect of human coning, indeed of Dr. Wilmut emotional responses. This essay is an effort to artico- as well, was of immediate and strong condemnation. late, and to evaluate critically, the main moral.com A few more cautious voices were heard both siderations and arguments for and against human suggesting some possible benefits from the use of cloning. Though many people's religious beliefs human cloning in limited circumstances and ques inform their views on human doning, and it is often tioning its too quick prohibition, but they were a difficult to separate religious from secular positions, dear minority. A striking feature of these early re- I shall restrict myself to arguments and reasons that sponses was that their strength and intensity seemed can be given a clear secular formulation far to outrun the arguments and reasons offered On each side of the issue there are no distinct in support of them--they seemed often to be "gut kinds of moral arguments brought forward. On the level emotional reactions rather than considered one hand, some opponents claim that human con ing would violate fundamental moral or human rights, while some proponents argue that its probi Claning Human Beings: An Auteuiment of the Ethical Intre and Can" by Dan W. Brock. Capyright 193 bition would violate such rights. While moral and by Dus W. Brock from homes and Clones Parts and even human rights need not be understood as abso Parrantes About Hume Ceing edited by Martha C. lute, they do place moral restrictions on permissible Nusbaum and Caus. Susten. Beprinted with actions that an appeal to a mere balance of benefits permission of WW. Neton & Company, Inc. over harms cannot justify overriding for example, 335 445-15 03/12
552 PART 3: LIFE AND DEATH the rights of human subjects in research must be human cloning could be the only means for individu respected even if the result is that some potentially als to procreate while retaining a biological tie to their beneficial research is more difficult or cannot be child, but in other cases different means of procreat- done. On the other hand, both opponents and pro- ing might also be possible. ponents also cite the likely harms and benefits, both It could be argued that human cloning is not to individuals and to society, of the practice. I shall covered by the right to reproductive freedom be begin with the arguments in support of permitting cause whereas current AKT's and practices covered human doning, although with no implication that by that right are remedies for inabilities to reproduce it is the stronger or weaker position sexually human cloning is an entirely new means of reproduction; indeed, its critics see it as more a means of manufacturing humans than of reproduc- Moral Arguments in Support tion. Human doning is a different means of repro- of Human Cloning duction than sexual reproduction, but it is a means Is There a Moral Right to Use that can serve individuals interest in reproducing Human Cloning! If it is not protected by the moralright to reproduc What moral right might protect at least some access tive freedom. I believe that must be not because it is to the use of human cloning? A commitment to in- a new means of reproducing, but instead because it dividual liberty, such as defended by S. Mill, re- has other objectionable or harmful features I shall quires that individuals be left free to use human evaluate these other ethical objections to it later. cloning if they so choose and if their doing so does When individuals have alternative means of not cause significant harms to others, but liberty is procreating human cloning typically would be too broad in scope to be an uncontroversial moral chosen because it replicates a particular individual's right (Mill. 1859: Rhodes, 1995). Human cloning is a genome. The reproductive interest in question then is means of reproduction in the most literal sense) not simply reproduction itself, but a more specific in- and so the most plausible moral right at stake in its terest in choosing what kind of children to have. The use is a right to reproductive freedom or procreative right to reproductive freedom is usually understood liberty (Robertson, 1994 Brock. 1994), understood to cover at least some choice about the kind of chil- to include both the choice not to reproduce, for ex- dren one will have some individuals choose repro ample, by means of contraception or abortion, and ductive partners in the hope of producing offspring also the right to reproduce with desirable traits. Genetic testing of fetuses or The right to reproductive freedom is property under preimplantation embryos for genetic disease or ab- stood to include the right to use various assisted re- normality is done to avoid having a child with those productive technologies (ARTS), such as in vitro diseases or abnormalities. Respect for individual fertilization (IVF) oscyte donation, and so forth The self-determination, which is one of the grounds of reproductive right devant to human cloning is a neg- a moral right to reproductive freedom, includes te ative right, that is, a right to use ARTy without interfer specting individual choices about whether to have a ence by the government ce others when made available child with a condition that will place severe burdens by a willing provider. The choice of an assisted means on them, and cause severe burdens to the child itself of reproductice should be protected by reproductive The less a reproductive choice is primarily the freedom even when it is not the only means for ind determination of one's own life, but primarily the viduals to reproduce, just as the choice among different determination of the nature of another, as in the case means preventing conception is protected by repro of human cloning, the more moral weight the inter- dactive freedom. However, the case for permitting the ests of that other person, that is the cloned child, we of a particular means of reproduction is strongest should have in decisions that determine its nature when it is necessary for particular individuals to be (Annas, 1994) But even the parents are typically able to procreate at all, or to do so without great bur- accorded substantial, but not unlimited, discretion dens or harms to themselves or others. In some cases in shaping the persons their children will become 1.41 IS PM
Chapter 3: Reproductive Technology 583 for example, theagh education and other childrearing reasons to want to use human cloning. However, decisions. Even if not part of reproductive freedom, human cloning seems not to be the unique answer the right to raise one's children as one sees fit to any great or pressing human need and its benefits within limits mostly determined by the interests of appear to be limited at most. What are the principal the children, is also a right to determine within possible benefits of human coning that might give limits what kinds of persons one's children will individuals good reasons to want to use it? become. This right includes not just preventing cer- tain diseases or harms to children, but selecting and 1. Human cleming would be a news to re- shaping desirable features and traits in one's chil- lieve the infertility some persons now experience dren. The use of human cloning is one way to exer Human cloning would allow women who have no cise that right ova or men who have no sperm to produce an off- Public policy and the law now permit prospective spring that is biologically related to them (Eisenberg parents to conceive, or to carrya.conception to term, 1976: Robertson, 1994, 1997. LaBar, 1984). Embryos when there is a significant risk or even certainty that might also be cloned, by either nuclear transfer or the child will suffer from a serious genetic disease. embryo splitting, in order to increase the number of Even when others think the risk or certainty of ge- embryos for implantation and improve the chances netic disease makes it morally wrong to conceive, or of successful conception (NARER. 1994). The benefits to carry a fetus to term, the parents' right to repro from human cloning to relieve infertility are greater ductive freedom permits them to do so. Most possil the more persons there are who cannot overcome ble harms to a cloned child are less serious than the their infertilky by any other means acceptable to them genetic harms with which parents can now permit I do not know of data on this point, but the numbers their offspring to be conceived or born who would use cloning for this reason are probably I conclude that there is good reason to accept that a right to reproductive freedom presumptively includes The large number of children throughout the both a right to select the means of reproduction, as world possibly available for adoption represents an well as a right to determine what kind of children to alternative solution to infertility only if we are pre- have, by use of human cloning. However, the specific pared to discount as illegitimate the strong desire of reproductive interest of determining what kind of many persons, fertile and infertile, for the experi- children to have is less weighty than are other repro- ence of pregnancy and for having and raising a ductive interests and chokes whose impact falls more child biologically related to them. While not impar- directly and exclusively on the parents rather than the tant to all infertile (or fertile) individuals, it is im- child. Even if a moral right to reproductive freedom portant to many and is respected and met through protects the use of human cloning that does not settle other forms of assisted reproduction that maintain the moral issue about human cloning, since there may a biological connection when that is possible that be other meal rights in conflict with this right, or se desire does not become illegitimate simply because rious enough harms from human cloning to override human cloning would be the best or only means of the right to use it, this right can be thought of estab- overcoming an individual's infertility lishing a serious moral presumption supporting 2. Human cloning would enable couples in which access to human dening one party risks transmitting a serious hereditary disease to an offspring to reproduce without doing 30 (Robertson, 1994). By using donor sperm or er What Individual or Social Benefits Might Human Cloning Produce! donation, such hereditary risks can generally be avoided now without the use of human cloning Largely individual Benefits These procedures may be unacceptable to some The literature on human doning by muclear transfer couples, however, or at least considered less desir- or by embryo splitting contains a few examples of able than human cloning because they introduce a circumstances in which individuals might have good third party's genes into their reproduction instead not large 335 449-1993 03/12
554 PART 3: LIFE AND DEATH of giving their offspring only the genes of one of saving their daughter, but not solely as a means, them. Thus, in some cases human cloning could which is what the Kantian view proscribes be a reasonable means of preventing genetically Indeed, when people have children, whether by transmitted harms to offspring Here too, we do not sexual means or with the aid of Arts, their motives know how many persons would want to use human and reasons for doing so are typically many and cloning instead of other means of avoiding the risk complex, and include reasons less laudable than of genetic transmission of a disease or of accepting obtaining lifesaving medical treatment, such as the risk of transmitting the disease, but the num- having someone who needs them, enabling them to bers again are probably not large. live on their own, qualifying for government bene- 3. Human dening to make a liter twint would fit programs, and so forth. While there are not ad enable a person to obtain needed organs or times mirable motives for having children and may not for transplantation (Robertson, 1994, 1997. Kahn, bode well for the child's upbringing and future, 1989: Harris, 1999). Human cloning would solve the public policy does not assess prospective parents' problem of finding a transplant donor whose organ motives and reasons for procreating as a condition ce tissue is an acceptable match and would elimi of their doing so nate, or drastically reduce the risk of transplant + Human cloning would enable individuals to rejection by the host. The availability of human clone someone who had special meaning to the cloning for this purpose would amount to a form of such as a child who had died (Robertson, 1994b). insurance to enable treatment of certain kinds of There is no denying that if human cloning were medical conditions. Of course, sometimes the med- available, some individuals would want to use it for Scalmeed would be too urgent to permit waiting for this purpose, but their desire usually would be the cloning, gestation, and development that is nec based on a deep confusion Cloning such a child essary before tissues or organs can be obtained for would not replace the child the parents had loved transplantation. In other cases, taking an organ also and lost, but would only create a different child with needed by the later twin, such as a heart or a liver, the same genes. The child they loved and lost was a would be impermissible because it would violate unique individual who had been shaped by his or the later twin's rights her environment and choices, not just his or her Such a practice can be criticized on the ground genes, and more importantly who had experienced that it treats the later twin not as a person valued a particular relationship with them. Even if the later and loved for his or her own sake, as an end in itself cloned child could not only have the same genes but in Kantian terms, but simply as a means for benefit- also be subjected to the same environment, which ing another. This criticism assumes, however, that of course is impossible, it would remain a different only this one motive defines the reproduction and child than the one they had loved and lost because the relation of the person to his or her later twin. The it would share a different history with them well-known case some years ago in California of the (Thomas, 1974) Cloning the lost child might help Ayalas, who conceived in the hopes of obtaining a the parents accept and move on from their loss, but source for a bone marrow transplant for their teen- another already existing sibling or a new child that age daughter suffering from leukemia, illustrates was not a clone might do this equally well; indeed, the mistake in this assumption. They argued that it might do so better since the appearance of the whether or not the child they conceive trmed out later twin would be a constant reminder of to be a possible done for their daughter, they would the child they had lost. Nevertheless, if human value and love the child for itself, and treat it as they cloning enabled some individuals to clone a person would treat any other member of their family. That who had special meaning to them and doing so ome reason they wanted it, as a possible means to gave them deep satisfaction, that would be a benefit suring their daughter's life, did not preclude their to them even if their reasons for wanting to do so, also loving and valuing it for its own sake; in and the satisfaction they in turn received, were based Kantian terms, it was treated as a possible means to on a confusion wch_46-561.indd 34 19 PM
Chapter 3: Reproductive Technology 555 Largely Social Benefits Worries here about abuse, however, surface 5. Human dewing would enable the duplication of quickly. Whose standards of greatness would be individuals of great talent, gerus, character, or other used to select individuals to be cloned? Who would complary qualities. Unlike the first four reasons for control use of human coning technology for the human doning which appeal to benefits to specific in benefit of society of mankind at large? Particular dividuals, this reason looks to benefits to the broader groups, segments of society, or governments might society from being able to replicate extraordinary use the technology for their own benefit, under the individuals - Mozart, Einstein, Gandhi. or Schweitzer cover of benefiting society or even mankind at (Lederberg. 1966: McKinnell, 1970). Much of the large appeal of this reason, like much support and opposil 6. Human coming and research on human cloning tion to human coning.rests largely on a confused and might make possible important advances in scientific false assumption of genetic determinism, that is, that knowledge, for example, about human development one's genes fully determine what one will become (Walters, 1982, Smith, 1983). While important po do, and accomplish. What made Mouart, Einstein, tential advances in scientific or medical knowledge Gandhi, and Schweitzer the extraordinary individu- from human doning or human cloning research as they were was the confluence of their particular have frequently been cited, there are at least three genetic endowments with the environments in which reasons for caution about such claims. First, there is they were raised and lived and the particular histori- always considerable uncertainty about the nature cal moments they in different ways sized. Cloning and importance of the new scientifikor medical them would produce individuals with the same ge- knowledge to which a dramatic new technology like netic inheritances (naclear transfer does not even human cloning will lead the road to new knowl produce 100 percent genetic identity, although for edge is never mapped in advance and takes many the sake of exploring the moral issues I have followed unexpected turns Second, we do not know what new the common assumption that it does), but it is not pos knowledge from human cloning or human cloning sible to replicate their environments or the historical research could also be gained by other means that contexts in which they lived and their greatness flour do not have the problematic moral features to which ished. We do not know the degree or specific respects its opponents object. Third, what human cloning in which any individual's greatness depended on research would be compatible with ethical and legal "nature" or "hurture" but we do know that it aheays requirements for the use of human subjects in re- depends on an interaction of them both. Cloning search is complex, controversial, and largely unex could not even replicate individuals' extraordinary plored. Creating human clones solely for the purpose capabilities, much less their accomplishments, because of research would be to use them solely for the these too are the product of their inherited genes benefit of others without their consent, and so un- and their environments, not of their genes alone. ethical. But if and when human coning was estab- None of this is to deny that Mozart's and Einstein's lished to be safe and effective, then new scientific extraordinary musical and intellectual capabilities, knowledge might be obtained from its use for legiti- nor even Gandhi's and Schweitzer's extraordinary mate, nonresearch reasons. moral greatness, were produced in part by their Although there is considerable uncertainty con- unique genetic inheritances. Cloning them might cerning most of human clowing possible individual well produce individuals with exceptional capacities, and social benefits that I have discussed, and al- but we simply do not know how close their comes though no doubt it could have other benefits or uses would be in capacities or accomplishments to the that we cannot yet envisage, I believe it is reasonable great individuals from whom they were cloned. to conchade at this time that human doning does not Even so, the hope for exceptional, even if less and seem to promise great benefits or uniquely to meet different, accomplishment from cloning such extra- great human needs. Nevertheless, despite these lim- ordinary individuals might be a reasonable ground ited benefits, a moral case can be made that freedom for doing so to use human doning is protected by the important 38 449-Line 39 03/12
556 PART 3: LIFE AND DEATH moral right to reproductive freedom. I shall turn now What is the sense of identity that might plausibly to what moral rights might be violated, or harms be what each person has a right to have uniquely, produced by research on or use of human cloning that constitutes the special uniqueness of each in dividual (Macklin 1994: Chadwick 1&2)? Even with Moral Arguments Against Human Cloning the same gernes, homozygous twins are numerically Would the Use of Human Cloning violate distinct and not identical, so what is intended must Important Moral Rights! be the various properties and characteristics that Many of the immediate condemnations of any pos- make each individual qualitatively unique and dif. sible human doning following Wilmut's cloning of ferent from others. Dous having the same genome Dolly claimed that it would violate moral or human as another person undermine that unique qualita- rights, but it was usually not specified precisely, tive identity? Only on the crudest genetic deter- often even at all, what rights would be violated minism, according to which an individual's genes (WHO, 1997). I shall consider two possible candi- completely and decisively determine everything dates for such a right: a right to have a unique iden- else about the individual, all his or her other non- tity and a right to ignorance about one's future ce genetic features and properties, together with the to an open future. Claims that cloning denies indi entire history or biography that constitutes his or viduals a unique identity are common, but I shall her life. But there is no reason whatever to believe argue that even if there is a right to a unique identity that kind of genetic determinism. Even with the it could not be violated by human coning the right sume genes, differences in genetically identical twins' to ignorance or to an open future has only been psychological and personal characteristic develop explicitly defended, to my knowledge, by two com over time together with differences in their life mentators, and in the context of human cloning histories, personal relationships, and life choices; only by Hans Jonas it supports a more promising sharing an identical genome does not prevent twins but in my view ultimately unsuccessful, argument from developing distinct and unique personal iden- that human cloning would violate an important moral tities of their own or human right. We need not pursue whether there is a moral or Is there a moral or human right to a unique iden- human right to a unique identity-no such right is tity, and if so would it be violated by human coming found among typical accounts and enumerations For human coning to violate a right to a unique iden- of moral or human rights, because even if there is tity, the relevant sense of identity would have to be such a right, sharing a genome with another indi- genetic identity that is, a right to a unique unrepeated vidual as a result of human cloning would not violate genome. This would be violated by human cloning it. The idea of the uniqueness, or unique identity, of but is there any such right? It might be thought that each person historically predates the development cases of identical twins show there is no such right of modern genetics. A unique genome thus could because no one claims that the moral or human rights not be the ground of this long-standing belief in the of the twins have been violated. However, this consid- unique human identity of each person eration is not conclusive (Kass, 1985. NABER, 1994) 1 turn now to whether human cloning would vi- Only human actions can violate others' rights out- olate what Hans Jonas called a right to ignorance, or comes that would constitute a rights violation if what Joel Feinberg called a right to an open future deliberately caused by human action are not a rights (Jonas, 1974: Feinberg. 1980). Jonas argued tha violation if a result of natural causes. If Arthur delib human cloning in which there is a substantial time erately strikes Barry on the head so hard as to cause gap between the beginning of the lives of the earlier his death, he violates Barry's right not to be killed; if and later twin is fundamentally different from the lightning strikes Cheryl, causing her death, her right simultaneous beginning of the lives of homozygous not to be killed has not been violated. Thus, the case twins that occur in nature. Although contempora- of twins does not show that there could not be a right neous twins begin their lives with the same genetic to a unique geneti identity inheritance, they do so at the same time, and so in www.ch 48-561 indd 396 19 00 PM
this way Chapter 3: Reproductive Technology S8 ignorance of what the other who shares the same The central difficulty in these appeals to a right genome will by his or her choices make of his or either to ignorance or to an open future is that the her life. right is not violated merely because the later twin is A later twin created by human cloning, Jonas likely to believe that his future is already determined argues, knows, or at least believes she knows, too when that belief is clearly false and supported only much about herself For there is already in the world by the crudest genetic determinism. If we know the another person, her earlier twin, who from the later twin will falsely believe that his open future has same genetic starting point has made the life been taken from him as a result of being comed, even choices that are still in the later twin's future. It will though in reality it has not, then we know that clon- seem that her life has already been lived and played ing will cause the twin psychological distress, but not out by another, that her fate is already determined that it will violate his right Jonas's right to ignorance, she will lose the sense of human possibility in freely and Feinberg's right of a child to an open future, are and spontaneously creating her own future and not violated by human cloning, though they do paint authentic self. It is tyrannical, Jonas claims, for the to psychological harms that a later twin may be likely earlier twin to try to determine another's fate in to experience and that I will take up later Neither a moral or human right to a unique Jones's objection can be interpreted so as not identity, nor one to ignorance and an open future, to assume either a false genetic determinism, or a would be violated by human cloning. There may be belief in it. A later twin might grant that he is not other moral or human rights that human cloning determined to follow in his earlier twin's footsteps, would violate, but I do not know what they might be but nevertheless the earlier twin's life might aways I turn now to consideration of the harms that human haunt him, standing as an undue influence on his cloning might produce life, and shaping it in ways to which others' lives are not vulnerable. But the force of the objection still What Individual or Social Harms seems to rest on the false sumption that having Might Human Cloning Produce! the same genome as his earlier twin unduly restricts There are many possible individual or social harms his freedom to create a different life and self than that have been posited by one or another commen the earlier twin's Moreover, a family environment tator and I shall only try to cover the more plausible also importantly shapes children's development, but and significant of them there is no force to the claim of a younger sibling that the existence of an older sibling raised in that largely Individual Harms same family is an undue influence on the younger 1. Human cloning would produce pychological sibling's freedom to make his own life for himself distress and harm in the later twin. No doubt know in that environment. Indeed, the younger twin or ing the path in life taken by one's earlier twin might sibling might gain the benefit of being able to learn often have several bad psychological effects (Callahan, from the older twin's or sibling's mistakes. 1993: LaBar. 19: Macklin, 1994: McCormick, 1999 A closely related argument can be derived from Studdard, 1978, Rainer, 1978: Verhey, 1994). The later what Joel Feinberg has called a child's right to an twin might feel, even if mistakenly, that her fate open future. This requires that others raising a has already been substantially laid out, and so have child not so close off the future possibilities that difficulty freely and spontaneously taking responsi the child would otherwise huve as to eliminate a bility for and making her own fate and life. The later reasonable range of opportunities for the child twin's experience or sense of autonomy and free- autonomously to construct his or her own life. One dom might be substantially diminished, even if in way this right might be violated is to create a later actual fact they are diminished much less than it twin who will believe her future has already been Beems to her. She might have a diminished sense of set for her by the choices made and the life lived by her own uniqueness and individuality, even if once her earlier twin again these are in fact diminished little or not at all 38 440-4587 03/12
551 PART 3: LIFE AND DEATH by having an earlier twin with the same genome. And if the later twin is not harmed by having been If the later twin is the clone of a particularly exem Created with these unavoidable burdens, then how plary individual, perhaps with some special capa- could he or she be wronged by having been created bilities and accomplishments, she might experience with them? And if the later twin is not wronged, excessive pressure to reach the very high standards then why is any wrong being done by human cloning of ability and accomplishment of the earlier twin This argument has considerable potential import for (Rainer, 1978). These various psychological effects if it is sound it will undermine the apparent moral might take a heavy toll on the later twin and be importance of any bad consequence of human clon- various burdens to her ing to the later twin that is not so serious as to make While psychological harms of these kinds from the twin's life, all things considered, not worth living human dening are certainly possible, and perhaps I defended elsewhere the position regarding the even likely in some cases, they remain at this point general case of genetically transmitted handicaps. only speculative since we have no experience with that if one could have a different child without com human cloning and the creation of earlier and later parable burdens (for the case of cloning, by using twins. Nevertheless, if experience with human den a different method of reproduction which did not ing confirmed that serious and unavoidable psycho- result in a later twin), there is a strong a moral logical harms typically occurred to the later twin reason to do so as there would be not to cause simi- that would be a serious moral reason to avoid the lar burdens to an already existing child (Brock, practice. Intuitively at least, psychological burdens 1995). Choosing to create the later twin with serious and harms seem more likely and more serious for a psychological burdens instead of a different person person who is only one of many identical later twins who would be free of them, without weighty over- cloned from one original source, so that the clone riding reasons for choosing the former, would be might run into another identical twin around every morally irresponsible or wrong, even if doing so street corner. This prospect could be a good reason does not harm or wrong the later twin who could to place sharp limits on the number of twins that only exist with the burdens. These issues are too could be cloned from any one source. detailed and complex to pursue here and the non- One argument has been used by several com identity problem remains controversial and not mentatoes to undermine the apparent significance fully resolved, but at the least, the argument for of potential paychological harms to Imer twin disregarding the paychological burdens to the later (Chadwick, 1982, Robertson, 1994, 2937: Macklin, twin because he or she could not exist without 1994) The point derives from a general problem, them is controversial, and in my view mistaken. called the nonidentity problem, posed by the phi- Such psychological harms, as I shall continue to losopher Derek Partit, although not originally ds- call them are speculative, but they should not be rected to human doning (Parfit, 1984) Here is the disregarded because of the nonidentity problem. argument. Even if all these psychological burdens 2. Human cloning procedures would carry unac from human cloning could not be avoided for any ceptable risks to the clone. There is no doubt that at- later twin, they are not harms to the twin, and so nottempts to come a human being at the present time reasons not to clone the twin. That is because the would carry unacceptable risks to the cone Further only way for the twin to avoid the harms is never to research on the procedure with animals, as well as be cloned, and so never to exist at all. But these pry carch to establish its safety and effectiveness f chological burdens, hard though they might be, are humans, is clearly necessary before it would be not so bad as to make the twin's life, all things.com ethical to use the procedure on humans. One risk sidered, not worth living. So the later twin is not to the clone is the failure to implant, grow, and de- harmed by being given a life even with these psycho- velop successfully, but this would involve the em logical burdens, since the alternative of never exist- bryo's death or destruction long before most people ing at all is arguably worse- he or she never hesa or the law consider it to be a person with moral or worthwhile life—but certainly not better for the twin legal protections of its life. wch 48-561.indd 398 19 09:48 PM
Chapter 3: Reproductive Technology 559 Other risks to the clone are that the procedure not as a replacement for the child they lost. Our in some way goes wrong, or anticipated harms relations of love and friendship are with distinct. come to the clone; for example, Harold Varmus, di- historically situated individuals with whom over rector of the National Institutes of Health, raised time we have shared experience and our lives, and the concern that a cell many years old from which a whose loss to us can never be replaced. person is cloned could have accumulated genetic A different version of this worry is that human mutations during its years in another adult that could cloning would result in persons worth or value give the resulting clone a predisposition to cancer seeming diminished because we would come to see or other diseases of aging (Weiss, 1997). Risks to an persons as able to be manufactured er "handmade." ovum donor (if any), a nucleus donor, and a woman This demystification of the creation of human life who receives the embryo for implantation would would reduce our appreciation and awe of human likely be ethically acceptable with the informed con- life and of its natural creation. It would be a mis- Sent of the involved parties take, however, to conclude that person created I believe it is too soon to say whether unavoid- by human cloning is of less value or is less worthy able risks to the clone would make human cloning of respect than one created by sexual reproduction forever unethical. At a minimum, further research At least outside of some religious contexts, it is the is needed to better define the potential risks to nature of being not how it is created, that is the humans. But we should not insist on a standard that source of its value and makes it worthy of respect requires risks to be lower than those we accept in For many people, gaining a scientific understand sexual reproduction, or in other forms of ART ing of the truly extraordinary complexity of human reproduction and development increases, instead of Largely Social Harms decreases their awe of the process and its product 3. Humun cloning would lessen the worth of A more subtle route by which the value we place individuals and diminish respect for human life. on each individual human life might be dimin- Unelaborated claims to this effect were common ished could come from the use of human cloning in the media after the announcement of the clon- with the aim of creating a child with a particular ing of Dolly, Ruth Macklin explored and criticized genome, either the nome of another individual the claim that human cloning would diminish the especially meaningful to those doing the cloning value we place on and our respect for human life or an individual with exceptional talents, abilities, because it would lead to persons being viewed as and accomplishments. The child then comes to replaceable (Macklin, 1994). As I have argued con- be objectified, valued only as an object and for its cerning a right to a unique identity, only on a con- genome, or at least for its genome's expected phe- fused and indefensible notion of human identity is notypic expression, and no longer recognized as a person's identity determined solely by his or her having the intrinsk equal moral value of all persons genes, and so no individual could be fully replaced simply as persons. For the moral value and respect by a later clone possessing the same genes. Ordinary due all persons to come to be seen as resting only on people recognize this clearly. For example, parents the instrumental value of individuals and of their of a child dying of a fatal disease would find it in- particular qualities to others would be to funda- sensitive and ludicrous to be told they should not mentally change the moral status properly accorded grieve for their coming loss because it is possible to persons. Individuals would their moral stand- replace him by cloning him it is their child who is ing as full and equal members of the moral commu- dying whom they love and value, and that child nity, replaced by the different instrumental value and his importance to them is not replaceable by a each has to others doned later twin. Even if they would also come to Such a change in the equal moral value and worth love and value a later twin as much as they now love accorded to persons should be avoided at all costs. and value their child who is dying that would be to but it is far from clear that such a change would love and value that different child for its own sake result from permitting human cloning Parents, 385 440-45 03/01
56 PART 3: LIFE AND DEATH for example, are quite capable of distinguishing reproduction and parenting. Any use of human their children's intrinsic value, just as individual cloning for such purposes would exploit the clones persons, from their instrumental value based on solely as means for the benefit of others, and would their particular qualities or properties. The equal violate the equal moral respect and dignity they moral value and respect doe all persons simply as are owed as full moral persons. If human cloning persons is not incompatible with the different in is permitted to go forward, it should be with regu strumental value of different individuals, Einstein lations that would clearly prohibit such immoral and an untalented physics graduate student have exploitation vastly different value as scientists, but share and are Fiction contains even more disturbing or bizarre entitled to equal moral value and respect as persons uses of human doning, such as Mengele's creation of It is a confused mistake to conflate these two kinds many clones of Hitler in Ira Levin's The Boys from of value and respect. If making a large number of Brazil (Levin, 1976), Woody Allen's science fiction clones from one original person would be more cinematic spoor Sleeper in which a dictator's only likely to foster it, that would be a further reason to remaining part. his nose, must be destroyed to keep limit the number of clones that could be made it from being cloned, and the contemporary science from one individual fiction film Blade Runner. These nightmare scenarios 4. Human cloning might wed by commercial may be quite improbable, but their impact should interests for financial guin. Both opponents and not be underestimated on public concern with tech- proponents of human cloning agree that cloned nologies like human coming. Regulation of human embryos should not be able to be bought and sold cloning must assure the public that even such far In a science fiction frame of mind, one can imagine fetched abuses will not take place. commercial interests offering genetically certified and guaranteed embryos for sale, perhaps offering Conclusion a catalogue of different embeyas doned from indi Human cloning has until now received little serious viduals with a variety of talents, capacities, and other and careful ethical attention because it was typically desirable properties. This would be a fundamental dismissed as science fiction, and it stirs deep, but violation of the equal moral respect and dignity difficult to articulate, uneasiness and even revulsion owed to all persons, treating them instead as objects in many people. Any ethical assessment of human to be differentially valued, bought, and sold in the cloning at this point must be tentative and provi- marketplace. Even if embryos are not yet persons sional. Fortunately, the science and technology of at the time they would be purchased or sold, they human cloning are not yet in hand, and so a public would be being valued, bought, and sold for the per and professional debate is possible without the need soms they will become. The moral consensus against for a hasty, precipitate policy response. any commercial market in embryos, cloned or other The ethical pros and cons of human coning, as wise, should be enforced by law whatever the public I see them at this time, are sufficiently balanced and policy ultimately is on human cloning uncertain that there is not an ethically decisive case 5. Human cloning might be used by governments either for or against permitting it or doing it Access or other groups for immoral and exploitative purposes to human cloning can plausibly be brought within a In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley imagined moral right to reproductive freedom, but its potential cloning individuals who have been engineered legitimate uses appear and do not promise sub- with limited abilities and conditioned to do, and stantial benefits. It is not a central component of the to be happy doing the menial work that society moral right to reproductive freedom and it does not needed done (Huxley, 1932). Selection and control uniquely serve any major or pressing individual or in the creation of people was exercised not in the social needs. On the other hand, contrary to the pro- interests of the persons created, but in the interests nouncements of many of its opponents, human cion- of the society and at the expense of the persons ing seems not to be a violation of moral or human created; nor did it serve individuals' interests in rights. But it does risk some significant individual or wc40-361.indd 380 IS 08 PM
sity Press social harms, although most are based on common public confusions about genetic determinism, human identity, and the effects of human cloning. Because most potential harms feared from human cloning remain speculative, they seem insufficient to warrant at this time a complete legal prohibition of either se search on or later use of human coning, if and when its safety and efficacy are established. Legitimate moral concerns about the use and effects of human cloning, however, underline the need for careful public oversight of research on its development, to- gether with a wider public and professional debate and review before doning is used on human beings. REFERENCES Annas, G. "Regulatory Models for Human Embryo Claring The Free Market, Prabal Guidelines, and Government Katrictions." Kemedy title of Bakice Journal 33-249 Brock, D. W. 1934. Reproductive Freedom: Its Nature, Reses and Limit' in Mat Care Enix Critical for Health Prof. D. Thomas and Monge Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publisher Brock.DW.69951 "The NoMercy Problem and Genetic Harma9275 Callahan, D. (1933 rapective on Cloning A Threat to Individual Uniqueness. Los Angeles Times, November Chadwick, I. l Csingleply 2009 Eisenberg L. 1976 "The Outcome as Cause: Predestination and Human Claring lural of Medicard Philosophy Feinherg. 1 (1910"The Child's Rights an Open Future.in Whou hulay Children's light, Paterial Autianty, and State Powereds W. Aiken and H. LeFollette. Totowe. N: Rowman and Littlefield Harrie (235a). Wandern and Superman: The Ethics of Biotechnology. Oxford: Oxford University Press Huxley A. Cal Bare New World. London Chale and Winders Tomas H. 1974. Philophilay From Ancient Chef Technological Mm. aplewood Cliff, Prentice-Hall Kahn.C.Can We Achieve Immortalay Fue Inquiry KaaL. fol. Toward a Mare Natural Science. New Yoek: The Free Press LaBar, M. 19 "The Pros and cons of Human Groning Thoughes-325 Chapter 3: Reproductive Technology 561 Lederberg. I. 1966. "Experimental Genetics and Human Evolution. Amerikaans Levin, 1976: The Bega free inazal. New York Bandara Home Mecklin, R. 1994 "Splitting Embryos en the Slippery Slope: Ethics and Public Policy" Kdy Nutie of Ekics Journal 3203-228 McCormick, R. 1991 "Should We Clone Humans?" Christie Centary McKins, B.(ws.Cound. Belogiat keparta. Mirnespala, MN: University of Minnesota Press Mall, T. & On Liberty Indianapolis, IN Hobbe Merril Publishing NABER (National Advisory Board on Ethics in Reproduction) 1954). "Report on Human Cloning Through Embryo Splitting An Amber Ligh." Kennedy Dute of Ethics Journal Parfit, Del Renon and Permon. Oxford: Oxford Uni- Rainer. 1. D. 1978 "Commentary." Mand Moline. The Journal of Values and the Hell - Rhodes. B. 1995). "Cloe, Harms and Rights Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Elice 4:25-29. Baberton 1. Awal Chile China and the New Reproductive Technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Xabertoon, A. (1934. "The Question of Human Cloning Hastings Center Report 24- Kabertoon. J.A. (1997). "A Ban on Cloning and closing Research is Unjustified." Testimony Presented the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, March 1997 Smith, G. Tatimation of Immortality:Clona, Cyrore and the Law University of New South Wales Law Journal Studdard, A. 157L"The Lane Clone." Max and Medion. The Journal of Valves and Ethics is Health Care 3:909-116 Thomas, L. (1974). "Nates of a Blog Watcher: On Cloning Human Being New England Journal of Medicame 29:1996-97 Vazbay, A. D. 594 "Caing: Ketting an Old Debate." Key Beatitate obicajem 17-234- Walters, W.A.W.Oggal. Cloning. Ectogenesis, and Hybrids Things to Comelin Tatu Mal, de WA W. Wales and P. Singer Melbourne Oxford University Press. Weiss, R. (1997! "Cloning Suddenly Has Government's Attention." International Herald Triban, March 1997 WHO (Woek Health Organization Press Office) March u. 1997 "WHO Director General Condemns Human Clo ing Woeld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Wilmur.et al. (el. leiping Derived from letal and Adult Mammalian Celaluistelu, 38 449-Line 03/12