my personal opinion on Cloning
Cloning refers to the act of producing genetically identical persons of an organism. This process can be either natural or artificial. Many organisms in nature produce clones via asexual production. The technology involves copying the DNA or cells of organisms and creating new beings with them. There are different areas where cloning can be used and of different purposes, as well. For instance, there is reproductive cloning, which most are against, and there is organ cloning, which brings about significant benefits to the medical community. Many, however, hold various ideas on whether this practice is acceptable ethically or not. This paper discusses my personal opinion on the matter.
Every individual has an opinion on whether or not it is acceptable to engage in the act of cloning of other human beings. The idea of producing many copies of genetically identical people asexually, who descend from a sole ancestor, brings about averse moral reactions. Most individuals point out that human cloning is possible scientifically and will be done in a matter of time. Should we then sit and accept the inevitable despite the repulsive nature it holds and the adverse consequences it may bring? Or should we instead attempt to come up with standards that make this scientific possibility morally defensible decisions?
The first adverse reaction from most individuals on human cloning is not insignificant. Ethics and bioethics have both taken the emotional responses of human beings developed typically into account while attempting to formulate answers to the many difficult ethical questions. Many individuals via instincts have senses that procreation that comes from an expression of love and within the family context is a beautiful thing that should be safeguarded. It is also believed by most that sexual procreation should not be replaced by technological operations that are performed in the laboratory. All cultures possess ethical standards such as the fourth commandment in the bible or the sixth commandment that give expression to this primary moral sense and hold up for family values.
Bioethicists are new players in the field of ethical reflection. The area of bioethics has its theoretical backgrounds and abstract principles as well as paradigm tales. However, it moves from these ethical perspectives to generate norms, policies as well as riles in society. For a while, they have been working on the genetics area after they discovered the DNA. They make distinctions among genetic interventions identified. Somatic cell therapy, for instance, is a type of treatment that impacts the individuals suffering from a particular genetic disease. It is different from germline therapy that primarily involves changing an ovum or a sperm hence requiring alterations of genes that are passed onto other generations. Bioethical standards or guidelines are many. The somatic cell gene interventions, for example, are part of the instructions posted on various related topics. Genetic interventions being used for only severe treatment purposes is one of the guidelines by the bioethical team.
Some personal thoughts
Like other professional moralists, bioethicists have to give much thought on the act of cloning. Human cloning has not been given much thought because back then, it was considered an incredible innovation and other problems that needed solutions, and much attention was in existence. However, this stand has changed. Bioethics can begin by doing away with the apparent mistakes and false issues in presence. Reproductive cloning would encourage an understanding of children and that of individuals in general as objects that can be designed and produced to carry specific characteristics. It also reduces the unique sense of individuals. It would profoundly violate and hold convictions that broadly deal with human individuality and liberty. This, in turn, could result in a devaluation of clones in comparison to none clones.
Also, I do not advocate for cloning due to its hazardous nature. From studies, at least eighty-five percent of cloning experiments in mammals have failed outcomes. These outcomes present themselves in the form of stillbirths, miscarriages as well as abnormalities that are life-threatening. I believe that a world with no clone is fully healthy. The development of these clones cannot be made possible without putting the lives of the women who bear them at risk.
I oppose entirely human cloning because I feel like it brings about disgust and is a fundamental assault on human dignity, considering it has the potential for misuse. Arguments of differing powerful forces have risen from the justification of reproductive cloning. For example, some commentators suggest that reproductive cloning could harm the social definition of the family. The most significant concern, however, is that of human reproductive cloning, which at some point infringes human dignity. A notable illustration of this is that of the universal declaration on the human genome and human rights, which advocates for a banning of the practices that are contrary to human dignities, such as that of cloning. The world health organization, as well as reaffirming that the act of cloning of humans that replicates them, is an unethical act that is not acceptable and goes against human dignity and integrity.
With the existence of such policy statements and universal public objections of the act of reproductive cloning, there has been little agreement on human dignity roles in the context. One of the reasons why cloning is against human dignity is in the background of autonomy and uniqueness. On the one hand, dignity is related to independence and the ability to make such decisions. Pride, on the other hand, is connected to uniqueness. A researcher once stated that copying genetic identity willfully goes past something intrinsic in human dignity as well as individuality.
The ethos underlying the positions mentioned above is philosophically problematic as well as scientifically inaccurate. We need to question the role our genes play in the uniqueness and why duplication of violates human dignity. Human genes play a significant role in our development. However, it is difficult to determine who we are as persons. Are identical twins’ dignity undermined because they have a sibling holding identical genomes? Our genes, more importantly, do not stick together out future lives to a specific course. A person’s autonomy is not undermined only because he or she has a unique gene. There exist several human traits that are controlled primarily by genetic factors. This is true and is what makes us who we are as persons. A human clone would not be as unique as such. Hence it will be hard to maintain uniqueness, especially since human dignity is reliant on having a unique genome.
Instrumentalism is another point explaining human dignity in cloning. For some individuals, cloning is not copying a person’s genome, which raises concerns about reproductive cloning. Cloning can lead to instrumentalism, which means that some of them will be treated as an end and not a means. Cloning can be used to create a life for a specific purpose or role which can danger the resultant dignity of the clone. It is, however, the persuasions or social expectations that are created by an inaccurate view of the part of genes, placed on a clone that challenges its human dignity and not the process of making it. Cloning can interfere with the dignity of the human formed in the future by violating its rights. They are created for a purpose which they are no aware of and in future may not have the liberty to say or do what they want but are programmed to perform a specific task. The clone is created for a particular or primary benefit, which is for the third party personal ad, not the human clone. This is an act of instrumentalism.
There are three possible ways of coming up with the moral stand of the embryo. To view and embryo as a small thing that we can do anything we desire to misses its significance as a developing human life. It is not logical for an individual to view an embryo as an entirely rational individual to believe that it deserves to be respected. Personhood is not an authorization to respect. As a matter of fact, it is considered a failure of respect. Some individuals fail to agree with the idea that an embryo is a human being. A scenario to test this is given. If a fire breaks out in a hospital, for instance, it would save a five-year-old or a tray of embryos. Most would save the child and not the nucleus. But why is this? Can it be wrong to keep just the girl and not the eggs? I think it is wrong. The fetus holds life in it despite that it is not grown fully to a human being. The level of significance taken to save the girls should be the same for the embryo. As stated in the above paragraph, one need not be a fully grown man to be respected. Hence morally, it is right to view an embryo as of significance to human life.
Cloning of organs can, however, have a significant health application in the transplantation of organs, treating nerve cells that are injured, among other practices. This is known as therapeutic cloning, whereby a nucleus is removed from any cell in an adult body. These cells are composed of genetic material, which is then transferred to an unfertilized egg, which also lacks a nucleus. Some advantages result from organ cloning despite the may ethical arguments against the entire concept of cloning.
One, it has the potential to create organs. Many individuals in America and across the world await organs transplants. Therapeutic cloning can be used to develop vital organs that can be used for these transplants. This process can do away with waiting times that are needed for individuals to find donors. Also, the cost of doing so will reduce significantly. There may, however, be some cases of organ rejection because the DNA from the cloned organ is similar to the individual whom it was drawn from.
Secondly, the issue of tissue rejection is not a threat any more due to therapeutic cloning. It provides an exact match for any individual who is in dire need of a tissue or organ. Non-organ related issues such as skin burn replacement are made possible due to the minimum chances of rejection of tissues made from this process. Genetic diseases can also be treated from therapeutic cloning. Some DNA information is carried by somatic cells, which is similar to the individual. Scientists can alter genetic consequences through the use of therapeutic cloning to correct any diseases or disorders caused by genetic issues. It is possible to create new medical treatments due to the technologies behind this process.
From therapeutic cloning, donor services may no longer be needed in the medical field. The current medical structure dictates that a person has to die for another to receive a transplant of vital organs such as the heart. Critical organs are scarce and due to the need for death, for a direct match for the recipient, and to be able to preserve the organ at the time of death. Therapeutic cloning could deal with all these concerns only if they were accepted and become a common practice in the medical society.
Cloning of organs can result in organ regeneration. Embryonic stem cells, for instance, can form various types of tissues. Scientists believe that these cells can be transitioned based on what a patient needs. Conditions can be repaired in weeks rather than months due to the availability of a new ligament that attaches itself. Another example can be a damaged liver from cirrhosis being replaced. Skin grafts can also grow in case of a burn and not live scarred tissues. Even without the cells, there is still a chance of organ regeneration. Therapeutic cloning can act as a preventative treatment that works best when proactive instead of reactive methods are taken. Through cloning, it would be easier to replace damaged cells with healthy cells that match them. This prevents disease and lessens the threats of health issues that can arise in the future. Also, genetic and chromosomal problems that some patients face can be avoided.
Therapeutic cloning also can reduce the amounts of time used for treatment. Unfortunately, about twenty individuals pass on each day while waiting for an organ. Every ten minutes, a new patient needing donation of an organ is added to a national transplant list in America. Kidneys can lead them to wait for up to five years or longer if they cannot find a match. Therapeutic cloning can aid in dealing with such circumstances faced in the health industry today. Lastly, therapeutic cloning offers new and better treatment options for patients and doctors. Long term diseases such as diabetes can be controlled using this process. Other devastating conditions can be treated, as well.
In conclusion, cloning is not ethical in my perspective. However, cloning, such as therapeutic cloning, has been seen to aid in providing solutions for health-related issues that are present in the world today. These positive contributions can be considered ethical as they are of excellent course and value the life and wellbeing of individuals.