Human cloning is not yet available, but we are not far from a time when cloning human beings could be possible. The question is, what are the ramifications (both ethical and scientific) and is it worth it? Wilmut cites three common justifications for the pursuit of human cloning, and goes on to explain the validity (or lack thereof) of each. "The first is to overcome infertility, the second is to 'bring back' a dead child, the third is to duplicate someone of astonishing ability or talent- to give the world another Mozart, Curie, or Einstein" (36).
In answer to the first point, it may not be worth the trouble. IVF (in-vitro fertalization) has given many an alternative to infertility, and new research outside of cloning is making progress. The second and third justifications: bringing back the dead and re-creating the exceptional are, unfortunately, out of our reach, and it is likely they will never be within the grasp of science.
When looking at the prospect of cloning specific persons, one has to look to real-life examples for information. As man-made clones are impossible to observe (there are none), one has to look at "natural clones" for context. The closest thing to a clone? An identical twin. But even identical twins are not exactly identical, are not clones. "Small variations in cell division. . .may slightly alter the appearance of one twin to another" likewise, nurture, innate personality, and environment play a role in how children develop (42). In reality, no twin is identical. The same goes for potential clones, but with added pressure.
"In an attempt to undo their terrible loss, some parents might want to clone their dead child from one of the infant's cells. . . drawing on the example of bereaved parents who try to deal with the loss by having another child in the hope that the new child would be a replacement for the one who died" (40). While cloning a dead child may seem like a good idea, the results would be heartbreaking, not only for the parents but for the clone. A person can never be truly reproduced like a document or photocopy. Genes are not enough. Nature, the surroundings, the moods around them, the times, the politics, the way life is will always be different, and so they will always be different. A clone could never "fill the shoes of the ghost" (40). They would either develop into their own person, or be miserable trying to be "a living memorial to the dead" (40). This approach is both unethical and sad, for all involved the emotional trauma has no rewards.
Another issue posed for the possibility of cloned persons (children or otherwise) is the "original" or "parent" donor. A clone would face expectations and bias from caregivers, making life more difficult. This is best illustrated by the real example of step-children, who are not biologically related to both parents. "Stepparents tend to invest less time and effort in the offspring from their partner's previous marriage than they do with their own children. . . the genetic parent of a clone may feel the child is 'mine' rather than 'ours'" (39). Children could receive less attention from parents because they are not a copy of that parent, the narcissism unfulfilled, the clone could be ignored or mistreated. On the topic of narcissism, the actual donor, the clone's original could be upset by the inconsistencies in their "copy" the same way parents get upset when their children fail to live up to their idea of what their kids should be. A clone in this postition, trying to develop their personality and life would suffer because the "parent or sibling" would feel "entitled to expect a clone to be just like him or his ideal" (39).
While the scientific community and citizenry could expect great rewards from cloning as far as progress in medicine and treatment of disease (which raises other ethical concerns that I'll adress in later posts), it appears the purley emotional desires for cloning, replication, narcissism, and replacement would be unethical to pursue, and impossible to satisfy.
No comments:
Post a Comment