Dan Brock outlines and discusses the relevant moral considerations of human cloning. Some of the considerations support human cloning; others do not.
One of the relevant issues that Brock does not adequately cover is the circumstances under which parents might choose to produce a clone of their child and the possibility of unjustness that this might introduce.
Suppose the parents of a deceased child decided to produce a clone of that child. The original child is dead; hence, the parents would not be treating the cloned twin as a mere means in any straightforward manner (they are not producing a clone to get bone marrow from the later twin, for instance). Yet, it would seem that the parents have decided to produce a clone of the original child in order to assuage and compensate for their own feeling of loss. The later twin is borne not out of the parent’s wish to have a child per se, but of the wish to have a twin that resembles the dead child hoping that this will allay their deep sense of loss. Giving birth to child, in this case, is not an act strictly of procreation but of compensation. The motive is different; and when the motive of an action is different, the moral worth of the action likely differs.
Furthermore, genetic determinism—roughly, the view that two persons with identical genetic make-up will grow up to be largely identical in appearance and demeanor—is false. Human development is not only a matter of “nature”, but of “nurture.” There is great likelihood that the cloned twin will develop in vastly different ways from the original, now dead, child that the parents so loved and wished to replicate. In the case of the cloned twin, a part of the parents caring attitude toward the cloned child seem to have its roots in the parent’s expectation that the clone will grow up to replicate the characteristics of the original child. Yet, given the falsehood of genetic determinism, it is highly unlikely that the cloned child will ever replicate all the characteristics of the original child that the parents favored. The failure to do so will result in a disappointment for the parents. It is questionable whether the parents will be able to continue to love the cloned child in the same way, if it turned out that due to environmental factors, the cloned child turned out to be very different from the original child they wished to preserve.
This possibility further suggests that the cloned twin will forever have to live in the shadows of his original, dead, sibling.
Every cloned child is born with a massive burden of expectation on his shoulders that a non-cloned child does not have. This is because in producing a clone, the producer is always motivated by a motive that is not just the longing for a child. Perhaps the genetic clone of Einstein is born with the weight of an expectation to be intellectually brilliant; but what is clear is that the cloned twin of a dead child is born with the hopes of his parents to grow up to be like the dead sibling.
The cloned child may be a genetically identical to the original child; but the cloned child is born with a much greater weight on his shoulders than the original child.
In addition to the points that you made in your post lebenswelt, in reading Brock's article, I feel that there are three more relevant issues that Brock failed to mention but which are causing me to be revolted by the idea of human cloning. One stems from his first point: Human cloning would be a new means to relieve the infertility some persons now experience.
ReplyDelete-What is happening to the human condition? Have we become so disillusioned that we feel it somehow unfair that we all can't do or have the same things? Not everyone who wants children will have children. Fact. Not everyone who wants to be rich, will be rich. Fact. Not everyone who wants to live a long and healthy life, will. Fact. It's disturbing to think that human cloning would in some way be a solution to assuage childless people regardless of the reason behind their childlessness. We just can't have everything that we want in life. That's not realistic and it is this sort of sci-fi-fantasy which has duped many into believing that we are somehow entitled to things that we just are simply not.
Brock's third point: Human cloning a later twin would enable a person to obtain needed organs or tissues for transplantation.
-At any time, does this "solution" take into account the feelings of the manufactured twin? Or are they assumed to be on board at all times with the barrage of medical procedures they most assuredly will have to endure for the sake of another. Are they even assumed to be human enough to have feelings that are recognized as autonomous to begin with? Let's suppose that this "twin" decides that they do not want their bone marrow used to support the life of someone else. That they do not want to participate in prolonging what might be the inevitable suffering of a “loved one”. To be "used" in this way at all. (There is an interesting story based on this idea by Jodi Picoult called My Sister's Keeper). Is this clone then discarded for failing to meet the purpose of being an organ "donor"? What if the loving Ayalas family that the author points to found out that the child they conceived fundamentally for the purpose of providing a donation for their teenage daughter with leukemia decided that they (the second child) didn't want to participate at all? Would the family have another child? -And if that child disagreed, would they have yet another? Would the child's choice even be taken into account? Would the second child, having "refused one of its purposes" then be neglected and deemed a failure or disappointment causing additional heartache for the Ayalas family and possible regret for bringing this second life into existence (assuming they alone could be credited with this feat through sexual reproduction)?
Then of the human clone, who will be responsible for the clone? Who will his/her parents be - the scientist who provided the nuclear transfer? The original genetic donor? How can we think it's OK to play creator when in reality we are simply replicating what cannot be creating? Is anything sacred anymore?
While reading Brock's article, the point that struck me the most was the one he made about human cloning to enable individuals to clone someone who had special meaning to them, such as a child who had died. I was glad to see that lebenswelt created a post about this. The first thing that came to my mind after reading this were the feelings of the product of the clone. Thinking about this, I put myself in the shoes of the clone, and found more negative things than positive about being created.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens when the person grows up at an age of understanding, and is told that they are the clone of a twin, and was created for the only reason that the twin that died had special meaning to them? What comes to mind is, the clone would think they are here to take the place of someone else, not for their own individuality. I think that person would feel regret, would perhaps struggle to be like the twin that died in order to please the parents, and would feel like a failure for most of their life. I agree lebenswelt: the cloned child is born with a much greater weight on their shoulders than the original child.
In senario, the twin child who was born by cloning by their parent's wish and their expectation from their original twin. As Lesbenswelt said that cloned child can be heavy burden on her shoulder from parent's expection that she should be resemble from thier lost child.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, parent should be educated that even though same gene nuclear transplant child can grow up totally different character affected by their environmental circumstacnces by nuturing from their parent or others. I should be feel sad and worthless that if I was born by cloning-nuclear transplantation, not by my own parent's sexual genes. The cloning child's self esteem can be very low and they may feel worthless if they found out they were born for purpose of any organ donation for their twin. This is moral arguments in support of human cloning in Dan Brock's essay.
In news media not too long ago, I heard that one couple from USA,lost their beloved dog and made neuclear transplantation by cloning in South Korea. They paid $100.000 for this cloning for their own satisfaction to have thier resembling dog. This dog may not turned out same character as original one; however, they will be happy with this cloning dog. Sheep cloning by Ian wilmut, Dolly lived only 6 years after they failed 276 times attempt.
This cloning procedure can be very expensive and I doubt it that human cloning will ever accepted in moral ethic in the future.