Module 6: Public Policy and Human Dignity by Caroline Olson

Introduction

This module explores the intricacies of human cloning technology. The two major readings for this week cover two separate approaches to this topic: a very formalized review of the ethics of cloning from an American committee for the purpose of legal recommendation and a less formal, but wonderfully rich account based on Jewish ethics. Reading both of these was very helpful in order to see a depth of response and the raising of different issues. There were topics covered in both that were not covered in the other, simply due to the intention of the writing and the cultural context of the document. The other readings which I focus much less on, revolve around who should be empowered to make ethical decisions in our society.

Human Cloning and Human Dignity by Leon Kass

In this lengthy, but digestible work, Leon Kass and other members of the President’s Council on Bioethics lay out in a very explicit way the entire concept and ethical debacle of cloning, from its history to its scientific uses to policy recommendations. It could be- and probably is- considered an American roadmap to cloning. Though it provides a number of policy recommendations for each use of embryos, the document provides a wide range of both pros and cons to each. This made the article overwhelming in a way because it was constantly switching sides, and I felt like my moral compass took a small (but fascinating!) beating in reading so many consecutive, well-developed arguments. In reading through such an immense and morally murky subject, I found the abundant discussions of terminology, context, and cases to be extremely helpful.

Ultimately, the council unanimously agreed on very little except that the act of cloning-to-produce-children should be prohibited due to technological underdevelopment and inherent moral issues. To clarify, “underdevelopment” meaning that when this was written in 2002, there was a 90% failure rate among offspring produced through cloning (Kass 20). It led me to wonder if in today’s world (17 years later), where genetically-edited humans have already been accomplished, great technological strides have been made, and use of biotechnology has become much more entrenched in society, a council would come to the same conclusions. This reading really emphasized the ethical gauntlet that cloning creates. The dilemmas that most provoked me were issues of individuality, how far we should go to help those who are ill, and how allowable the manipulation of some human beings to help others is. This was a wonderful, though morally taxing, read, especially when followed by the subsequent reading.

“What’s So Bad about Human Cloning?” by Yitzchok Breitowitz

In this article Breitowitz confronts the issues of human cloning through the lens of the Jewish faith. In this work, the author introduces us to the construct of technology and man in the Jewish tradition, then continues to address the benefits and subsequently the many issues he finds with cloning. He, first, richly describes the tensions between humans’ autonomy in making the world in the image of God and being submissive to the “wonder of the Divine” (Breitowitz 327). He justifies the autonomous use of biomedical technology by, first, describing that the Torah fully supports medical intervention, then continuing by saying that “we are, as it were, collaborative partners with the Divine in improving the world, in conquering illness, and in trying to make the world better for others” (326). Then, he shows how in Genesis Chapter 2 men were made from dust and charged with the preservation of world order. The author deftly shows how the Jewish faith in a modern society must “walk a tightrope, to achieve a precarious balance between two alternative, but complementary visions of human beings…” (328).

I found Breitowitz’s analysis of this tightrope very balanced indeed. The author is supportive of cloning for the opportunities it provides parents to viably reproduce and the benefits it has for organ and tissue donation to help those in need. Keeping his practicality about him, he then turns his attention to the allocation of this technology, which he determines is, in itself, an ethical dilemma. There is not yet a fair way to determine eligibility and equal access to either reproductive cloning or cloning for the intention of donor products; neither a market, nor lottery system make any ethical sense. He emphasized that with the advent of eugenic technology, reproductive cloning becomes hazardous moral ground when considering some people value some genetics and types of lives more than others. The other section of this work I greatly appreciated was the analysis of the psychological burden of being a clone. I personally feel that uniqueness and individuality are an inherent part of the human identity (at least in the American culture) and that that quality of a unique human should be preserved. I’m also entirely aware that I am a product of my own culture and that the “individuality, autonomy, and self-expression” he mentions are fundamental rights that should be afforded, uninhibited, to all (336). Ultimately, he beautifully wove the Jewish narrative with a modern discourse on cloning.

My favorite part of this article was his brief discussion of predetermination of behavior based on genetics versus autonomy and free will. Will clones be their “own” person with their “own X-factor,” as he calls it (337)? He believes they will, stating that a clone of Hitler could become another Mother Teresa (338). Although I’m a believer in choices and the relevance of environmental factors, I think the tension created between genetics and autonomy is endlessly fascinating.

Considering Both Sides

I truly enjoyed reading from two totally opposite cultures. Both articles were cognizant of the benefits and problems of cloning and, in my opinion, not too forceful with any one view. Though less comprehensive, I favored Breitowitz’s article due to its straightforward, coherent writing style; I felt less battered at the end of it with the same amount of provocation. Both viewpoints really emphasized the same themes of what good cloning could do for the world, the limits vs. expanse of human technology, and the impact on society as a whole. I think the main contrast is that America’s ethical mode of thinking seems to be determined in a more legal way, compared to the Jewish culture, which relies upon its ancient texts to be contextualized in a modern environment.

References

– Leon R. Kass, Human Cloning and Human Dignity (President’s Council on Bioethics, 2002).
– Yitzchok Breitowitz, “What’s So Bad about Human Cloning?” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal (2004): 325-341.
-Leon Kass, Reflections on Public Bioethics: A View from the Trenches,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (2005): 221 -250.
-Ruth Macklin, “The New Conservatives in Bioethics: Who are they and what do they seek?” Hastings Center Report 36 (January-February 2006), pp.34-43.
-Kathrin Braun, “Not Just for Experts: The Public Debate about Reprogenetics in Germany.” Hastings Center Report 35 (2005): 42-49.

9 Replies to “Module 6: Public Policy and Human Dignity by Caroline Olson”

Hi Caroline!
Through your blog, I was able to understand some of the parts that I was not able to pick up on while doing the readings on my own. I also thought about the question you have made on the council’s mind about whether they would have changed their thoughts or not on cloning to produce children if they were to have seen successful results from it. As I was doing the readings, I’ve struggled to make my position clear and take one side on human cloning because both the contradicting ideas had well-developed arguments.

I think you’ve done a good job illustrating how complicated and morally gray the usage of human cloning is. This is made even more complicated by the fact that it encompasses new sciences that have only come into light within the last 50 years. The moral issue of cloning itself is incredibly new, and unfortunately ties into a muddied history of eugenics and favoring some genes over others. Likewise, the potential good that can come from this technology is incredibly valuable.
I find that I tend to forget the potential for different cultural perspectives of medical technologies whenever I learn about them in class, so I’m glad to be able to read these accounts taken from different cultural/religious perspectives.

I enjoyed reading your blog post, Caroline. I also favored reading Bretiwotiz’s argument. It was interesting reading about the topic from a religious standing. Another aspect of cloning that I found interesting is the argument that it can be used to help other’s when they’re ill and in need of an organ. Although I agree this can be very beneficial to those who are in need of a donor, I also found it odd to turn to a clone for the sole purpose of harvesting body parts. Perhaps it is more to this argument I am not grasping, but this really struck out to me. Despite this idea, I am not completely opposed for or in support of cloning. It is a very thought-provoking subject and after reading for today’s class I continue weighing the pros and cons of cloning.

I truly appreciate your statement, “I felt less battered at the end of it with the same amount of provocation” because I completely agree. I felt like Breitowitz’s more casual writing style made his arguments more digestible and relatable even though I myself am not a part of Judiasm. Furthermore, I, like you, enjoyed how he touched on nature vs. nurture. Additionally, a lot of the arguments made by the council, besides its high failure rate, reminded me of the book House of the Scorpion which touches on these ethical dilemmas through a fictional lens.

Caroline, I very much enjoyed reading your blog post. In particular, I enjoyed the part in which you framed the fascinating possibility of a clone, while genetically identical, turning out behaviorally different from the subject by which it came from. This brings up the whole argument of nature vs nurture; I wonder how this debate would present itself in the context of cloning. Could experience and epigenetics truly influence a genetically identical subject towards a completely juxtaposed identity?
I really enjoyed how you approached each article with enthusiasm and covered the topics that most interest you. You brought up many interesting points, like the one mentioned above, as well as the curiosity of how ethicist would perceive cloning now that we have had 17 years of technological advancement. I look forward to the discussions that will arise in class today.

I loved your comparison of the readings for this module, especially your claim that the main contrast is that America’s ethical mode of thinking seems to be determined in a more legal way, compared to the Jewish culture, which relies upon its ancient texts to be contextualized in a modern environment. It’s interesting to realize that different people and different regions weigh certain corners of Dr. Seeman’s ethnographic triangle more than others. They also seem to take on varying reactions to the constant change in assistive reproductive technologies as well as the changing perspectives on it. Because there’s no one right answer, could it be possible that different society and people’s approaches to change and paradigm shifts should matter more than currently existing views?

I think you stressed how much of a controversial issue cloning is and why, which makes a lot of sense. I also favored Breitowitz’s article due to it being more upfront and easy-to-understand, since the issue is so multifaceted. The most interesting piece of his writing was that a clone of Hitler could be the next “mother Theresa,” as you noted, due to the nature vs. nurture point-of-view. That would be very interesting…

I really enjoyed reading your blog, particularly the one where you discuss Breitowitz text because it helped me understand things I hadn’t before. I think it would add more to the discussion if you also included other important aspects such as the policy recommendations or the different concerns scientists brought up in the Kass text. You touched on how little the text agreed on certain issues which I am also confused about. One of the things I found interesting was how little they wrote about who should regulate this. They mentioned including different people from different groups but they all come from such different backgrounds. I could see how difficult it would be for them to come to an agreement in which case it would just create an environment where little is done.

So Caroline,

I agree that the stuff that stuck out of much of the readings is the complication of the topics and just how hard it is to simplify things down. I personally would like to see discussions of the bioethics of cloning under the perspectives of more disciplines. I look at most everything from a social justice perspective and I very much resonate with the idea that the more control we have over genetics, the more our ideals of the “perfect human being” will show. At the same time, there’s also that argument you and Liza mentioned of the benefits cloning and other technology could bring.

Liza,
I liked how you talked about the idea that these readings bring in a lot more polarization than they may have intended. Though I’m probably pretty polarized in my viewpoints, I understand how in other’s eyes this can weaken one’s argument. How do you think these authors’ arguments could have been strengthened? Why do you think they use the approach of being morally right if it’s an exhausted method? What’s a better way to approach questions and discussions like these?