Cloning in General and Ethics of Cloning - Thesis Example

ID Number & Cloning in General and Ethics of Cloning Thesis ment Conflicting religious and philosophical arguments behind the human cloning practices. Religious concerns behind cloning Religion is one factor that can significantly affect the developments and people’s outlook and attitude with regards to the issue on human cloning. Specifically the leaders of each religion has a different attitude and individual opinions with regards to cloning. Most religion such as the Protestant, the Roman Catholic, and the Islamic religion would automatically reject the concept of reproductive cloning for the reason that they believe that life is a gift from God (Woodward 5 – 7; Frazzetto). Despite the fact that some religion would immediately reject the idea of reproductive cloning, Buddhism and Hinduism has a more positive stand with regards to the practice of reproductive cloning (Hinduism Today; Woodward 7; Promta; Frazzetto). According to Frazzetto, Buddhists believe that “there is no supreme or divine creator, whose plan might be distorted by human tinkering with nature” and that “the creation of life is not a fixed or unequivocal process”. Since Buddhists strongly support the idea that life can begin in different ways, this particular religious group strongly accept the concept of reproductive cloning (Woodward 7; Promta). Even though Buddhists have come to accept the practice of reproductive cloning, this particular religious group does not necessarily agree to the practice of therapeutic cloning due to the fact that the use of immature human beings as part of the therapeutic cloning is not in accordance to the religious ethics of Buddhism (Promta; Frazzetto). The Roman Catholic does not support the practice of reproductive cloning because this particular religious group considers the act of destroying the excess embryo in IVF process as murder (Woodward 6; Lachmann; Somerville). According to Bruce, people does not h ave the right to have t he power to predetermine the genetics of a person [cited in Frazzetto]. For this reason, the Roman Catholics have argued that people should preserve not only the dignitiy of human procreation and the conjugal union of married couples but also the dignity of the human embryo (Frazzetto). The religious beliefs of the Protestant are almost similar to that of a Roman Catholic such that the Protestants strongly believe that life begins at the time of conception (Frazzetto). For this reason, the Protestants also have a negative point-of-view with regards to the issue on human cloning. With the strong belief that the practice of cloning could somehow increase the benefits to the people, Hinduism does not literally object nor condemn all types of human clonining such as the therapeutic cloning, reproductive cloning, DNA cloning, and animal cloning (Hinduism Today; Woodward 7). Even though this particular religion permits the practice of cloning, Hinduism clearly explained that the practice of cloning should not be done out of “selfishness, gree, and power” to avoid the need to face a negative karmic reaction in the future (Hinduism Today). Based on the book of Koran, the Islamic law does not support on the practice of reproductive cloning such as the IVF procedures due to the fact that the use of this particular manual procedure bypasses the union between the husband and wife (Woodward 6; Frazzetto). Even though the Shari’ah acknowledges the difference between the actual and potential life, this group strongly believe that there is a need for people to protect the actual life which is the embryo. Other than the ethical concerns with regards to the use of embryo in the practice of reproductive cloning, the Islam religion is also concerned about the possible effects of cloning on “inter-human and familial relationships” (Frazzetto). Unlike religions like the Protestant and the Roman Catholic, the Jewish law does not consider the embryo as a person but only after upon the birth of a child (Kass, Blackburn and Carter). It means that Judaism does not literally consider conception as a form of life (Farley 90 – 91). For this reason, the point-of-views of Judaism is similar to that of the Islamic religious beliefs. Based on the Torah, the Jews are given the freedom to expand their scientific knowledge in order to preserve the life of the human beings (Frazzetto). It means that the Jewish law strongly promotes the future development in the practice of therapeutic stem-cell research provided that this particular research study does not lead to the process of destroying the life of the people (Frazzetto). Since the Jewish law and ethics does not literally object the practice of cloning, there will always be some Muslims who are open to the practice of therapeutic cloning provided that the embryo used in this practice does not go beyond the 120 days after conception (Woodward 7). Philosophers point-of-view on cloning Philosophers have a different point-of-views with regards to the practice of human cloning. In line with this, several philosophers such as the case of Julian Savulescu, Gregory E. Pence, and Nicholas Agar are in support of human cloning practices. On the other hand, philosophers like Leon Richard Kass strongly oppose the practice of biotechnology or human cloning. For instance, a Romania-Australian bioethicist and philosopher named Julian Savulescu published some of his writings in order to argue that the use of stem cell research should be highly promoted regardless of whether or not a person would consider an embryo as a human being (Kahane and Savulescu; Savulescu; Wilkinson, Kahane and Horne). Savulescu argued that parents should be given the opportunity to choose the best child a married couple can have through the study of genetic information (Savulescu). Furthermore, Savulescu explained that the process of killing some embryos can be justifyiable given that the said action could benefit more people in the future (Wilkinson, Kahane and Horne; Kahane and Savulescu). Even though this particular biotechnology would mean killing an embryo or a fetus, Savulescu concludes that embryonic stem cell research should be justified because this process could eventually help the adults have more opportunity for tissue or organ transplantation whenever necessary (Kahane and Savulescu). An expert in medical ethics and a philosophy professor at the University of Alabama in Birmingham named Gregory E. Pence is one of the few bioethicists who strongly supports the practice of human cloning (Pence). According to Pence, the practice of human cloning should be promoted rather than being publicly banned because of the future promises of biotechnology which includes prolonging the life of human beings and assisting in the process of reproduction. Nicholas Agar is another philosopher and professor in Ethics at the Victoria University of Wellington is very much active in doing a research on genetics and cloning (Agar). With regards to the issue on human cloning, Agar acknowledges the possibility wherein the technology of human cloning can be used by people unethically. However, Agar argued that despite taking so much time thinking about the negative consequences of biotechnology, it is best on the part of the people to focus on identifying and analyzing the long-term benefits of cloning (Agar, Cloning and Identity). Pertaining to the use of embryo in embryonic stem cell research, Agar argued that “the absence of a functional relationship with a womb that marks embryos morally suitable for embryonic stem cell research” (Agar, Embryonic potential and stem cells). It means that Agar strongly emphasizes the difference between an embryo that is formed through conception and an embryo that is developed out of somatic cell nuclear transfer and that only the embryo that comes from somatic cell nuclear transfer can be used for therapeutic purposes. As the President of the Council on Bioethics between 2001 to 2005, Leon Richard Kass is another bioethicist who plays a significant role in opposing the study of biotechnology. Being a humastic being, Kass does not support the idea of having to use biotechnology in enhancing the natural physical appearance of a person. Even though biotechnology can be used to promote better health opportunity for the people, Kass argued that people can abuse the use of stem cell research to continuously use this particular technology only for vanity purposes (Kass). Russell Blackford is not only an Australian philosopher but also a writer. After the cloning of the Dolly sheep through the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer back in 1997, Blackford argued that regardless of the people’s concern with regards to the safety of cloning practices, there is no justification in appealing the state’s coercive powers to ban the practice of human cloning (Blackford, Human cloning and posthuman society). After reading the article that was written by Judith Thomson with regards to the “legal and ethical problems of human cloning” (2000) 8 JLM 31, Blackford argued that Thomson’s justification behind the need to restrict and prohibit the use of therapeutic and reproductive cloning has been based on “unacceptable understanding of parenthood” (Blackford, Thinking about cloning: a reply to Judith Thomson). Wolfgang Schirmacher is a Swiss editor and teacher in philosophy who argued that people can be cloned without the use of scientific technology intervention because the use of media itself is already one way of encouraging people to live an artificial life (Schopenhauer 300). It means that people can use the media to distract people’s attention from how people should live life in a more ethical way. In other words, the media can be used as a medium to create humanity that is beyond the real and authentic concept of humanity. Conclusion Cloning is one of the most controversial topics today. Not one person can say that the practice of cloning is entirely immoral without considering the future end-results of the said act. Through the practice of cloning, it is possible for science to cure or find solution to a wide-range of health issues. Despite the advantages of cloning practices, a lot of religious groups and some philosophers have argued that it is immoral and unethical to promote the practice of cloning. To some philosophers and religious groups such as in the case of Buddhism, the practice of cloning is very much acceptable. For some philosophers, it can be argued that the effectiveness of cloning is highly dependent on its utilization. There is a mixed point-of-views amongst the different religious sectors and the philosophers. To avoid facing too much criticism, the practice of cloning should take into consideration the reasons why different religious sectors and philosophers are opposing to the idea of human cloning. By determining and analyzing the reasons why different sectors are opposing to the practice of cloning, the modern scientists who are into biotechnology can avoid triggering the sentiments of other people. Instead, the modern scientists should find other ways to practice cloning without violating the ethical considerations behind the said practice. References Agar, Nicholas. "Cloning and Identity." Journal of Medicine & Philosophy 28.1 (2003 a): 9-26. —. "Embryonic potential and stem cells." Bioethics 21.4 (2007 b): 198-207. Blackford, R. "Human cloning and posthuman society." Monash Bioethics Review 24.1 (2005): 10-26. —. "Thinking about cloning: a reply to Judith Thomson." Journal of Law and Medicine 9.2 (2001): 238-250. Farley, M.A. Chapter 10. In K. L. Suzanne Holland, The human embryonic stem cell debate: science, eithics, & public policy. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001. Frazzetto, G. "Embryos, cells and God." EMBO Reports 5.6 (2004): 553-555. Hinduism Today. A HINDU PERSPECTIVE. For the President, Mr. Bill Clinton. Hinduism Today. 1 April 1997. Web. 29 November 2012 http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5043. Kahane, Guy and Julian Savulescu. "Brain Damage and the Moral Significance of Consciousness." The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 33.1 (2009): 1-22. Kass, Leon. Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry. 2012. Web. 30 November 2012 . Kass, Leon R., et al. Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry. The Presidents Council on Bioethics. July 2002. Web. 29 November 2012 . Lachmann, P. EMBO Report 2 (2001): 165-198. Pence, Gregory E. Gregory E. Pence. bioethicist and author, in support of human cloning. 2012. Web. 30 November 2012 . Promta, Somparn. "Human Cloning & Embryonic Stem Cell Research: A View from Theravada Buddhist Morality." Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 14 (2004): 197-199. Savulescu, Julian. "Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children." Journal: Bioethics 15.5-6 (2001): 413-426. Schopenhauer, Arthur. Schopenhauer: Philosophical Writings. The German Library 27. The Continuum International Publishing Group. NY, 1994. Somerville, M. The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit. Toronto: Viking, 2000. Wilkinson, D., et al. "Functional Neuroimaging and Withdrawal of Life-sustaining Treatment from Vegetative Patients." Journal of Medical Ethics 35(2009): 508-511. Woodward, John. The Ethics of Human Cloning. MI: Greenhave Press, 2005. Read More