The readings for this week cover a full spectrum of perspectives on the topic of the bioethics of human cloning.\u00a0 While previous modules have frequently focused on contrasting views from authors with different religious beliefs or countries of origin, this week\u2019s readings primarily focus on authors within the United States who span different regions of the socio-political spectrum.\u00a0 Although authors like Leon Kass[1], Ruth Macklin[2], and Kathrin Braun[3] assert that bioethical positions are not necessarily tied to political philosophies, I was not convinced by their arguments.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Regardless of one\u2019s perspective on how closely bioethics is tied to religious or political beliefs, the arguments for or against human cloning tend to revolve around similar core themes.\u00a0 As Yitzchok Breitowitz points out, we as a society must weigh the costs and the benefits of cloning.[4]\u00a0 In their report \u201cHuman Cloning and Human Dignity,\u201d the President\u2019s Council on Bioethics spends over 300 pages detailing the ethical arguments for and against human cloning.\u00a0 Despite devoting hours and hours to discussing and writing about the topic of human cloning, the President\u2019s Council remained \u201cdivided on the ethics of embryo research.\u201d[1]\u00a0 Perhaps the root of the division, is not an ignorance of the many costs and benefits of human cloning, but merely a different opinion of how much weight to give each of these factors.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The defense of human cloning mainly focuses on its potential for relieving human suffering.\u00a0 That may include the emotional suffering of an infertile couple or single individual who desires to have a child.\u00a0 Cloning may directly impact physical suffering by providing a source of genetically matched tissues for transplantation for a sick child or adult.\u00a0 The President\u2019s Council on Bioethics delves even deeper into the more indirect benefits of cloning in the field of biomedical research.\u00a0 Their report details the potential benefits of this type of research, including increasing understanding of disease, developing novel treatments for disease, and progressing the field of gene therapy.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The arguments against cloning include the more immediate effects on participants as well as the downstream impact on society.\u00a0 Regarding the immediate effects of human cloning, two of the major concerns are safety and efficacy.\u00a0 As both Breitowitz and the President\u2019s Council on Bioethics remind us, the past animal cloning experiments have frequently yielded non-viable animals or those with severe deformities.[4] [5]\u00a0 Breitowitz also discusses the potential psychological stress that might arise for a cloned individual, who perhaps was born into a set of unfair expectations due to their pre-determined genetics.[4]\u00a0 The President\u2019s Council mentions similar concerns for cloned individuals in regards to issues of identity and individuality.[5]\u00a0 The more far-reaching, society-level concerns are the exploitation of cloning for profit and eugenics.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In her discussion of the ethical debate regarding reprogenetics in Germany, Kathrin Braun details the extent to which the history of the Nazi party in Germany has impacted policy decisions regarding reproductive and genetic technologies.[3]\u00a0 The reality of their country\u2019s past has left many Germans determined \u201cnot to be the sort of people who distinguish between a life worth living and a life not worth living.\u201d [3]\u00a0 The past has so strongly influenced the present that German law has made abortion illegal and created stringent limits on the use of embryos for research or reproductive intent.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Braun and Macklin examine the subject of bioethics more broadly and offer their opinions on the types of people and groups who comprise the different sides of the debate on genetic research and cloning.\u00a0 Macklin argues that the traditional labels of conservative and liberal are somewhat meaningless in bioethics because many \u201cliberals\u201d would oppose artificial technology and many \u201cconservatives\u201d should support the biotech and pharmaceutical industries that stand to benefit from technology.\u00a0 However, despite her argument that labels are not applicable, she goes on to criticize conservatives for not fighting fair by using \u201cpoetic language,\u201d appealing to \u201cemotion,\u201d and being \u201cmean-spirited.\u201d[2]\u00a0 Meanwhile, the liberal bioethicists, a group amongst which she includes herself, have far nobler goals of reducing disparities and fighting for social justice.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Some of this module\u2019s readings remind me of political debates where each side claims to be unbiased and interested in compromise, but the viewer ends up feeling like neither side is being truly forthright.\u00a0 I\u2019m left wondering if the President\u2019s Council on Bioethics was truly non-partisan, or merely a reflection of the views of a conservative president and a conservative chairman.\u00a0 Macklin\u2019s article eerily brings to mind the aftermath of the most recent presidential election, where liberal academics were left dumbfounded by the results.\u00a0 Ironically, I think the most balanced discussion of cloning comes from Breitowitz, who is writing purely from a Judaic perspective.\u00a0 Rather than trying to convince the reader that he is unbiased, he states his perspective clearly in the first sentence.\u00a0 As opposed to criticizing those who may think differently, he simply goes about examining all sides of the issue from his Judaic perspective.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I think bioethical discussions need to include both science and morality.\u00a0 Dismissing moral or faith-based perspectives serves to increase the divide between academia and the general public as well as the divide between different faiths and moral viewpoints.\u00a0 I am also skeptical of any field where the experts see themselves as far superior to the general public, such as Braun\u2019s claim that job of bioethics is \u201ceducating the public and correcting public opinion \u2013 of making public opinion rational.\u201d[3]\u00a0 This assertion has some dark undertones when viewed in light of Germany\u2019s past.\u00a0 I do not have an answer to the human cloning debate, but these readings have convinced me to seek further information by studying scientific and religious perspective texts as opposed to those authored by bioethical experts whose motives are unclear or political.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The readings for this week cover a full spectrum of perspectives on the topic of the bioethics of human cloning.\u00a0 While previous modules have frequently focused on contrasting views from authors with different religious beliefs or countries of origin, this week\u2019s readings primarily focus on authors within the United States who span different regions of … <\/p>\n