Sadly, Dan Brock focused “principally with cloning by nuclear transfer, which permits cloning of an adult, not cloning by embryo splitting.” Based on recent current events, a little foresight would have allowed his article to directly relate to 2009. However, as he admits, “some of the issues apply to both” so copying a few of his points regarding nuclear transfer and applying them to embryo splitting will allow a discussion regarding Barack Obama’s March 9th Executive Order “Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells.”
(I’ve attached links at the bottom of this post for both the Executive Order as well as the Presidential Memorandum).
In the Presidential Memorandum, President Obama states, “we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.” The obvious issue is that the executive office only shut the door on cloning used for “human reproduction,” not all “human cloning.”
What exactly defines “cloning for human reproduction?” Reconsidering my original dismay at Brock having focused solely on nuclear transfer, following guidelines set forth by the new administration, is it not conceivable to legal clone an adult human as long as it is not for the purpose of human reproduction, that being, the implantation and gestation of the second twin embryo?
I am by no means any sort of expert regarding this order nor the science behind it, however it seems as though the legal door is open for a wide variety of ethical issues to come into play, specifically, the use of human clones as replacement body parts. Brook addressed human cloning in order to obtain “organs or tissues for transplantation” and refuted the morally reprehensibility of it because the cloned twin would be both a means to save a previous child’s life and an ends by “being loved and valued for its own sake” (page 635).
However, based on the order passed by President Obama, the cloned twin could only be legally cloned as a means, not as an ends in and of itself, since cloning is only illegal when done so for “human reproduction.” Is the term "cloning for human reproduction" so easily subverted?
The administration has not yet written the necessary additional regulations defining the executive order regarding stem cell research and the passing line regarding cloning; however, to the casual observer it appears as though there is quite a hole by specifically addressing cloning in regards to solely human reproduction.
Presidential Memorandum
Executive Order
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wallace,
ReplyDeleteYou quoted Brook in your blog in regards to human cloning for organ reproduction as stating " because the cloned twin would be both a means to save a previous child’s life and an ends by “being loved and valued for its own sake” (page 635). My issue with his refutation (not your comment :)) of this idea is How can a parent, who reproduced a child merely to save another and then subject that child to the horrific pain of bone marrow transplant or any other transplant procedure, truly say that they valued that cloned child's life as much as the first child. How can you create a child, make he/she suffer and say you loved them unconditionally? personally, I dont see that behavior as treating that child as an end by itself. That being said, I am not in that position so I have not idea what desperation would drive me to do in that circumstance, but again that plays into using your emotions to guide your moral behavior.