The Problem Of Medical Benefits

What was once thought to be the content of fiction novels and comic books is now being fully explored and realized in the cutting edge world of modern science. Scientists now possess the necessary capabilities and technology to make the process of human cloning a reality. While this is a controversial and rather sensitive topic, cloning is an innovative practice that has the potential to vastly improve the lives of unlimited amounts of people. Although cloning may prove to be a useful remedy for many of today’s issues, there are those in the scientific and medical fields who remain vehemently opposed to its practice. It is for this reason that lawmakers, scientists, and doctors around the world are currently locked in a fierce standoff

Recently the ability to clone a human being has become a very realistic possibility. However, the issue of morality has taken center stage on this topic. A Gallup poll taken in 1997 revealed eighty-eight percent of Americans stated, "cloning human beings would be morally wrong" (Dudley

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 ethical debate concerning biotechnological exploration into genetic cloning has created a monster in itself. A multitude of ethical questions arises when considering the effect of creating a genetically engineered human being. Does man or science have the right to create life through unnatural means? Should morality dictate these technological advancements and their effects on society? The questions and concerns are infinite, but so to are the curiosities, which continue to perpetuate the advancement of biotechnological science. In order to contemplate the effects that science can have on our society we can look back in history and literature to uncover the potentiality of our future

For many years there has been a large controversy over the use of cloning for therapeutic and reproductive purposes. The argument against therapeutic cloning is that creating an exact replica of one's self all for the use of harvesting its parts is considered killing another human being. However, some people are for this use so that they can survive as long as they can, and use the clones materials as a way to cure disease or heal injuries. On the other hand, reductive cloning also has two sides, for and against. People who believe that reproductive cloning is okay, want to create another version of themselves just to either have themselves as a baby or replace a loved one. But, people who are against reproductive cloning believe that it is a selfish or unreasonable act to have one birth a

Currently, the issue of health insurance has been a bone of contention for the public regarding whether the United States government should provide this health plan or not. People often possess different perspectives and refer to pros and cons on both sides of the spectrum. While some believes a universal healthcare system will set a foundation for a lower quality of service, increasing governmental finance deficit, and higher taxes, others do not hold the same thought. A universal healthcare system brings enormous advantages rather than disadvantages, such as all-inclusive population coverage, convenient accessibility, low time cost, and affordable medical cost, all of which not only provide minimum insurance to the disadvantaged but also improve the efficiency of medical resources distribution.

In healthcare, there are problems throughout the world. These problems include issues within insurance companies, lack of sanitation and medical service causing various countries with more diseases than normal. Immigrants come to the United States because they need better medical services that they are unable to get in their country. With the lack of healthcare materials and sanitation in countries outside of the United States, it makes many people choose to live here. An ongoing problem with medical insurance leaves people with no insurance at all.

(McConnell, T. c2014) If parents use cloning as an instrument of achieving their desired outcome of a genetic child and embryos are considered as a form of human life at fertilisation before being destroyed in medicine, then the moral way to handle this is to ban all forms of genetic cloning. In all cases of cloning, the embryo life form is a tool for a human to get what they

Ever since the birth of the first cloned sheep, named Dolly, the dream of human cloning has existed (Van Dijck, 1999). Cloning a mammal is described as the manipulation of an animal or human cell in order to create an identical copy of that animal’s or human’s nucleic DNA (Andrews, 1997). Though the dream of a human clone also comes with a lot of controversy regarding ethics and morals. Embryotic stem cell research, which could lead to a renewable source of human tissue, cells and eventually entire organs (Bowring, 2004), is highly controversial due to the necessity of placing a cloned embryo into a woman’s body

Then again, with the fruitful cloning of the sheep "Dolly" in 1997, it got to be obvious that at some point or another, researchers may have the capacity to clone people, as well. This probability has actuated both backing and restriction. Daily papers and magazines have portrayed cloning as an energizing stride forward that permits hereditary designers to lessen the vulnerabilities of proliferation, however they have likewise distributed editorials by researchers, religious figures, and other people who see human cloning as an assault on human pride. This Essay concentrates on whether we as a general public ought to acknowledge human cloning by physical cell atomic exchange to make

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

There are a multitude of debated ethical topics, especially with the the rapid development of scientific advancements and technology. It is important to consider the philosophy of morality as scientific developments continue to evolve. The topic of human cloning is definitely one of the most fascinating, yet highly controversial topics.

The first problem that human cloning encounter is it is one of unethical processes because it involves the alteration of the human genetic and human may be harmed, either during experimentation or by expectations after birth. “Cloning, like all science, must be used responsibly. Cloning human is not desirable. But cloning sheep has its uses.”, as quoted by Mary Seller, a member of the Church of England’s Board of Social Responsibility (Amy Logston, 1999). Meaning behind this word are showing us that cloning have both advantages and disadvantages. The concept of cloning is hurting many human sentiments and human believes. “Given the high rates of morbidity and mortality in the cloning of other mammals, we believe that cloning-to-produce-children would be extremely unsafe, and that attempts to produce a cloned child would be highly unethical”, as quoted by the President’s Council on Bioethics. Since human cloning deals with human life, it said to be unethical if people are willing to killed embryo or infant to produce a cloned human and advancing on it. The probability of this process is successful is also small because the technology that being used in this process is still new and risky.

The cloning of humans is now very close to reality, thanks to the historic scientific breakthrough of Dr. Ian Wilmut and his colleagues in the UK. This possibility is one of incredible potential benefit for all of us. Unfortunately the initial debate on this issue has been dominated by misleading, sensationalized accounts in the news media and negative emotional reactions derived from inaccurate science fiction. Much of the negativity about human cloning is based simply on the breathtaking novelty of the concept rather than on any real undesirable consequences. On balance, human cloning would have overwhelming advantages if regulated in a reasonable way. A comprehensive ban on human cloning by a misinformed public would be a sorry