Should human cloning be feared? Or should we, as a society be fair in allowing individuals to make that choice for themselves with the hope that each will be morally responsible in that choice? While public sentiment runs against the idea of moral responsibility, do we have enough information for or against the technology to make the moral judgment on which an outright ban would have to be based?
The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that various public officials are proposing legislation to outlaw human cloning or at the very least impose restrictive limits on the research that will lead to cloning. To date, researchers fear that the US Congress could pass laws banning research on human cloning. A directive issued in 1997, by President Clinton to ban the use of federal funds for human cloning research suggests that an outright ban to continue the research and eventually the practice will be the next step taken by Congress. The directive not only bans the use of federal funds to public research companies, but also urges those who receive private funding to accept a voluntary five- year moratorium on such research, at least “ while the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) reviews the issues and prepares a report. (8)
The directive was published in April of 1997, the Commission promised a report by the end of May in that same year. The NBAC examined ethical, legal and religious implications of cloning before urging a moratorium on human cloning. By Spring of 1999, Skeptic Magazine reported “The Commission concludes that at this time it is morally unacceptable for anyone in the public or private sector, whether in a research or clinical setting; to attempt to create a child using somatic nuclear transfer cloning.” (9) Somatic cell nuclear transfer was the technology used to clone Dolly, the sheep. Scientists feel that the same technology could be used to clone humans.
Ethical concerns against cloning as outlined by the Commission:
-
*diminished sense of individuality and personal autonomy
-
*degradation of the quality of parenting and family life
-
*whether parents would be tempted to seek excessive control over cloned children
-
*re-opening of the door to Eugenics (dating back to 1930‘s)
Ethical arguments for cloning as outlined by the Commission:
-
*protecting personal choice
-
*maintaining privacy and freedom of inquiry
-
*encouraging the development of powerful new technologies
Religious opinions taken from various sources were as varied as religious practices in this country, each guided by the philosophy to which each subscribed. The opinions were so varied and so entrenched the NBAC was prompted to conclude that “.. there is so single ‘religions’ view on cloning humans, any more than for most issues in biomedicine.” (10) Their conclusion represented the ideas of those who felt that using this kind of technology to create a child would be immoral and could not be justified. Others held that it could be morally justified under certain circumstances, but it should be strictly regulated in order to prevent abuses.
Catholic teaching refers to human cloning as something out of the norm. The cloning of human beings would be a violation of the natural moral law. The Catholic Medical Association CMA is opposed to any attempts at human cloning and finds it “-contrary to the method of procreation designed by God.” (11)
We can not know what harm or benefits cloning will bring to our human existence, as we know it today. We do know however, that much of what we fear in this technology will continue to play a role in our changing evolution.
To conclude this segment, I quote from Lee Silver, “For human beings, though, it’s not just a question of whether cloning could work, it’s a question of whether it could work safely. A basic principle of medical ethics is that doctors should not perform any procedure on human subjects if the risk of harm is greater than the benefit that might be achieved.” (12) Physicians would be obligated to refrain from practicing cloning technology unless they are sure that it causes no greater dangers than that which is associated with natural conception. As it stands now, can they be sure if they are banned from practicing?