Cloning Ethical Dilemmas

There are many good reasons to both develop cloning and incorporate it into modern medicine. Human cloning is extremely beneficial, but there are some downsides. Many of the problems are ethical in nature. Matthew Nisbet involved the public in his article. He polled the public on their opinions about human cloning and stem cell research. He found that “The public appears to have strong reservations about research that destroys embryos”

There are some scientist and the public that concluded that human cloning would aid in the progress of genetic knowledge and human advancement. In John Harris article, Is gene Therapy a Form of Eugenics?, he brings forth the issue of disabilities. He advocates that if we have the genetic means to create people free of disabilities, then gene therapy eugenics should be allowed. This would be a form of reproductive cloning. John Harris wrote, “It is not that the genetically weak should be discouraged from reproducing but that everyone should be discouraged from reproducing children who will be significantly harmed by their genetic constitution.” 3 This would insure people with genetic defects to have health children. Even in Dan Brock’s essay he points out the positive positions on the benefits of cloning for genetic reasons. He admits that even though cloning is not the natural way for reproduction, it could lead to some good things genetically. Cloning technology could also teach doctors how to renew damaged cells by growing new cells and replacing them. The study of cell differentiation could be enhanced by studying the development of a clone. Cloning could be used to produce extra human organs or prevent hereditary diseases. This process even could be capable of reproducing someone who died to help alleviate the pain of loss. In a bigger aspect, some of our most talented people or genius could be recreated like Mozart or Einstein. However, as Brock brings his essay

There should be no room to clone any human being nor animal. There is so much more to find out about our world then to test the non-achieved and inefficient process of cloning. Therefore I am against any type of cloning, whether therapeutic or reproductive. Andy vidak I write to you this letter, to give you a better understanding of why funding for cloning would set us back as a society. Genuinely I care about our future because I want our generation to be known as the one who did brilliant things. The excuse that cloning can potentially result in medical breakthrough is unacceptable because, like president George W. Bush said in his 2002 speech about human cloning, “We can pursue medical research with a clear sense of moral purpose.” (Office of the Press Secretary par. 12). Research cloning would contradict the most underlying principle of medical ethics, that no human life should be exploited for the convenience of another. For that reason I stand by

Human Cloning could be found as unethical to many people. In “The Question of Human Cloning.”, John A. Robertson addresses the hypothetical scenario of cloned human embryos being put up for sale (2). This would inevitably stop inherent uniqueness and dignity of individuals and create unrealistic parent expectations for their children; these embryos would be created and sold for genetic desirability. There is also the concern of cloned embryos used for future “spare parts” (Elmer-Dewitt, 3). Cloned embryos could be born just for the use of being used to give things needed by someone else; for example if someone was to need a heart transplant a cloned embryo could be born and they would use the heart of the clone, but if clones were to be seen as any other human would that be considered the murder of an innocent life. In “Cloning Where do we Draw the Line.” Phillip Elmer-Dewitt

Human cloning is described as “the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human.” Although human cloning has no record of being successful, cloning was demonstrated to be possible when scientists Sir Ian Wilmut and the rest of their research team successfully cloned Dolly, a sheep (Wilmut 12). This demonstration opened up a new area of science ready to be explored. If animals can be cloned, can human beings be cloned too? If successful, scientists would be able to clone human copies and further advance modern medicine, such as using cells for regenerative medicine or harvesting organs for transplants. It is also possible that other fields of medicine and research can be furthered with this supply of human clones. Additionally, couples incapable of reproducing can pursue cloning to create an offspring with their DNA. However, human cloning has never been successful and comes with ethical concerns.The clone can suffer from abnormalities. There are also concerns regarding the treatment of embryos to gather stem cells and the treatment of clones as a person. By further investigating and analyzing this topic through the lens of Catholic moral tradition, I hope to make clear the pros and cons of the subject while also evaluating them with an ethical theory learned from this quarter in order to add to the discussion.

The idea of finding a way to cure people of diseases with their own cells is one that scientists, physicians, and those who are afflicted by such diseases find very enticing. Therapeutic cloning is a process that scientists believe has the potential to achieve such goals in the future. While therapeutic cloning brings with it a variety of potential benefits and innovations, it also carries with it a polarizing ethical conflict that poses a strong impediment to furthering such research and development. By realizing therapeutic cloning for its great potential benefits and world changing implications and disregarding any ethical considerations that may deter such advancement, the proper focus and open-mindedness necessary to achieve success in the field would be achieved. Therapeutic cloning, like all medical endeavors, includes a multitude of challenges and flaws, but no very important medical achievements come about without extensive research and continual attempts at success.

The act of cloning a human being comes dangerously close to human beings acting as God. Do human beings have the right to tamper with nature in this way? This essay explores the various ethical issues related to the cloning debate, and seeks answers to this deep philosophical question at the heart of bioethics. As a student of genetic biology and future biologist, this question also has personal relevance. Our science is evolving at a rapid pace. As human cloning becomes increasingly possible, it is important that we analyze the ethics of cloning so that judicious public policy can be created. It is therefore my position that research into cloning should continue to fulfill the fundamental goals of scientific exploration and to explore the possibilities that cloning might have in terms of benefitting human society; on the other hand, there are certainly ethical limits to the practice of cloning. It is important to define those ethical limits, so that scientists understand the best ways to proceed.

Embryonic stem cell research is the study of stem cells derived from the undifferentiated inner mass cells of a human embryo. For many years now, the ethics of embryonic stem cell research has been argued. A recent advance in this line of research is the ability to clone the embryonic stem cells, which allows for researchers to create a completely compatible embryonic stem cell to the individual’s tissue type. Though this new science may be very beneficial, not everyone can agree on the ethics of it. While the National Bioethics Advisory Commission approves of stem cell research via in vitro fertilization, they are strongly opposed of the cloning of embryos, which is expressed in Volume I Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, “Issues in Human Stem Cell Research". On the other hand, Dr. Katrien Devolder, the writer of the article, “Creating and sacrificing embryos for stem cells” is devout to the advocacy of embryonic stem cell research which includes the use and derivation of stem cells from spare in vitro fertilization embryos as well as the creation of embryos for these purposes. Embryonic stem cell research has accomplished so much for for medicine, it would be a shame to not continue it because of opposing views that could easily come to a mutual consensus.

While some believe cloning to be acceptable others feel equally strongly that human cloning is completely wrong. With the state of the science as it is at the moment it would involve hundreds of damaged pregnancies to achieve one single live cloned baby. What is more, all the evidence suggests that clones are unhealthy and often have a number of built-in genetic defects, which lead to premature ageing and death. It would be completely wrong to bring a child into the world knowing that it was extremely likely to be affected by problems like these. The dignity of human life and the genetic uniqueness we all have would be attacked if cloning became commonplace. People might be

Differing viewpoint on Therapeutic cloning is not just limited to the general public, even researcher and professor have their own distinct judgement on the topic. The first view point that is going to be discussed is an opinion that supports therapeutic cloning. Shane Ham is a senior policy analyst for the Progressive Policy Institute, an education and research institute that promotes progressive politics geared to the informational age. Hams believes that Therapeutic cloning should be tolerated because it aids organ transplant, it’s an ethical form of cloning, and an embryo doesn’t have the same moral status as a human (Hams, 2007). Since Therapeutic cloning is very different from reproductive cloning, he believes it is a ethical form of

The specific objective of this major essay is to clarify and summarise the controversial debate concerning the ethical decency of embryonic cloning for therapeutic purposes. This is the form of cloning that is supposedly beneficial to a barrage of medical applications. We will identify the key opposing ethical perspectives such as those of the justification of embryonic research based on the normative theory of consequentialism. This paper will also probe into the relatively brief history of the debate while gauging the particular stumbling blocks of disagreement which bioethicists have arrived at. The topical aspects of therapeutic cloning will be closely studied by weighing the pros and cons and gaining a greater understanding of the

If a random individual were asked twenty years ago if he/she believed that science could clone an animal, most would have given a weird look and responded, “Are you kidding me?” However, that once crazy idea has now become a reality, and with this reality, has come debate after debate about the ethics and morality of cloning. Yet technology has not stopped with just the cloning of animals, but now many scientists are contemplating and are trying to find successful ways to clone human individuals. This idea of human cloning has fueled debate not just in the United States, but also with countries all over the world. I believe that it is not morally and ethically right

This would avoid the long waits of searching for matched organs and the fear of even when receiving te donor organ, the body rejects it. However, in my opinion, this prevents scientists from focusing on developing other treatments using non-embryos cells to treat and cure diseases. Patient will be even suffering with the pain longer. No research has confirmed that cloned organs will develop the same as the original. During the therapeutic cloning, embryos will be killed to harvest the stem cells. Human embryo is the carrier of life. We are killing lives. Good ends do not mean that it is right to achieve that

Beginning with the moral argument, one must understand reproductive freedom. Most cloning activists say that reproduction, or the lack there of, is a natural freedom given to people (C). Restricting human cloning would be a violation of that right. Just as people can choose not to reproduce using contraception, abortion, or abstinence, people should be allowed to use all means possible within their ability to reproduce, such as through cloning and in vitro fertilization (C). Cloning is the application of this right specifically (C). Another benefit of cloning is the ability to clone someone who has died to console those who are grieving over their lost loved one or to clone the DNA of a person that was known for his of her greatness. Scientists would be able to recreate these people in a new environment (C). A clone's parent may have come from

There are also many negative aspects of cloning. To create different organs or limbs in order to help a person to live longer or more comfortably seems to go against nature. The way human life should be created is through sexual intercourse. Harmond Varmus, a schoolteacher, said it best; “Human cloning represents a grave attack on the dignity of conception and on the right an unrepeatable, unpredetermined set of genes.” To clone an animal is almost the same thing. We are playing with the way humans and animals have reproduced for years. Is it fair that we clone and then kill an animal just for its organs in order to save a person’s life? Scientists are not even sure that the animal’s organs will be compatible with the human body. According to the Medical Research