There are, no doubt, sound reasons to consider the tight regulation of reproductive cloning. Why, then, is the ad hoc use of the notion of human dignity in the context of reproductive cloning a problem? It hurts public debate. Though I am tremendously skeptical of the worth of intuitive reactions as a justification for a given law, particularly criminal prohibitions [ 57 ] if general cultural anxiety is one of the rationales for a proposed ban, then this should be explicitly stated.
Policy makers should not dress up the argument as a concern for human dignity in order to create the perception of legitimacy. By doing so, transparency in policy making is obscured or even lost.
As noted by Shaun Pattinson in his critique of the Canadian government's use of human dignity as a justification for a ban: "Once again we are left with the feeling that other arguments are in play but remain unsure as to what those arguments are". If the concerns about cloning are based on the fear that we live in a world increasingly governed by inaccurate views of genetic determinism and, therefore, people may have inappropriate ideas of what cloning can do, [ 59 ] then this too should be stated.
Indeed, it could be argued that we should be focussing our policy making energy not on the technology but on the possible causes of the deterministic sentiments that may motivate the desire to use reproductive cloning. Unfortunately, "genetic determinism" is a much more challenging and amorphous policy target as compared with human cloning technology. In addition, using human dignity as a blanket argument against all forms of human cloning makes it much more difficult to reflect rationally on the true risks and benefits of the technology.
Such claims can have powerful rhetorical force no one is against the idea of human dignity! Finally, we are in danger of trivializing and degrading the potential normative value of human dignity. There seems little doubt that the rapid advances that are occurring in the field of science, and biotechnology in particular, will continue to create new social and regulatory challenges, many of which may also raise issues associated with notions of human dignity.
The way we handle current science policy issues stands as a precedent for future analysis. The ad hoc application of human dignity in relation to human cloning will undoubtedly impact how it is applied to future technologies. We should strive to apply the principle in a logical and coherent fashion otherwise the notion of human dignity is in danger of being eroded to the point where it stands as nothing more than a symbol of amorphous cultural anxiety.
Vogel G: Dolly goes to greener pastures. Google Scholar. Bonnicksen A: Crafting a cloning policy: from Dolly to stem cells. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Schachter O: Human dignity as a normative concept. Am J Int Law. Article Google Scholar. Malby S: Human dignity and human reproductive cloning.
Heath and Human Rights. Christian Bioethics. Public Law. Edited by: Meyer M, Parent W. Kass L: The wisdom of repugnance. The New Republic. June 2, Mohler RA: The brave new world of cloning: a Christian worldview perspective. In Human Cloning: Religious Responses. Vogel G: Misguided chromosomes foil primate cloning.
Giles G, Knight J: Dolly's death leaves researchers woolly on clone ageing issue. Saad L: Cloning of humans is a turn off to most Americans. Gallup News Service. May 16, Health and Human Rights.
Williamson R: Human reproductive cloning is unethical because it undermines autonomy: commentary on Savulescu. J Med Ethics. Bruce D: A View from Edinburgh. Edited by: Cole-Turner R. Rovane C: Genetics and personal identity. In A Companion to Genethics. Edited by: Burley J, Harris J.
Nat Biotech. Polkinghorne J: Cloning and the Moral Imperative. Valparaiso University Law Review. The Modern Law Review. Med L Rev. Edited by: Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. Kolnai A: Dignity. In Dignity, Character and Self-Respect. Edited by: Dillon RS. Global Jurist Frontiers. The New York Review of Books. Harris J: Cloning and Human Dignity. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. Edited by: MacKinnon B. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Albany Law Review. Saturday Night. National Journal of Constitutional Law. It would be absurd to say that the existence of one member of a pair of twins is a violation of the right of the other one to genetic uniqueness. It certainly need not do so. To ban it on this suggested ground seems whimsical and irrational. Whose human dignity would be protected by such a ban? The human dignity of people who want and permit their bodies to be cloned? The human dignity of people who would not be born was it not for cloning?
People should be respected as people regardless of the biological derivation history of their embryos. We should repeal the UK legislation against human cloning and think very carefully about whether, how and why we should replace it. Portsmouth Climate Festival — Portsmouth, Portsmouth. Preventing the implantation and subsequent birth of cloned embryos once they are available in the laboratory will prove to be impossible. The most effective way to ban reproductive cloning is to stop the process at the beginning, with the creation of cloned embryos.
Since the overwhelming consensus is that reproductive cloning should be prohibited, steps must be taken to ban research cloning as well. It is nonsensical to believe that we can ban one without also banning the other. Finally, research cloning is likely to fall woefully short of its alleged promise. You may notice that our company has not made such investments, and we have been offered the opportunity many times.
They have already moved on to investigating the alternatives. Finally, given that most scientists have predicted that human clones would be plagued with undetectable but harmful genetic abnormalities, such abnormalities might also be present in the tissues or cells derived from cloned human embryos.
There are no current or foreseeable methods available to assess whether the genome of a cloned embryo is free of such defects. Human cloning is a benchmark for public policy, and the legislative decisions made regarding it will significantly impact the future of many areas of scientific research. The public is being told that research cloning is good because it will yield miraculous cures; however, even if scientists conclude that such cures will likely not result, research cloning will still be defended by those who wish to justify it on the basis of "scientific freedom.
However, scientific freedom is not a fundamental right. If we fail to ban all forms of human cloning, society's continued ability to regulate or ban future scientific research will be seriously diminished in the name of autonomy and utilitarianism.
Human cloning for any purpose opens the door to a "Brave New World," and we must shut that door now. Skip to main content. Search form Search. Special Resource Types:. Dignitas Article.
0コメント