|
You are viewing
Volume 41, Issue 11
March 9, 2004
To return to the current issue please click
here.
|
 |
March 9, 2004
Cloning
debate focuses
on ethics vs. health issues
Kimberly Hosey
Mesa Legend
 |
 |
 |
“(Cloning is)
ethically wrong,
no matter how
appealing the
consequences.”
David Yount
Instructor of philosophy |
“The total number of people that could benefit from stem
cell-based therapy is 134 million...”
Thomas Kaenzig
Vice president of Clonaid |
“The possibilities offered by therapeutic cloning are
indeed significant.”
Barry Vaughan
Instructor of philosophy |
Cloning used to be science fiction, explored only by authors like Aldous Huxley
and Fay Weldon. Today, although the possibility of its practice is met with
heated opposition, human cloning technology has become a reality.
On the heels of the Feb. 12 announcement that human embryos had been cloned
in South Korea, three speakers met Feb. 25 at MCC to discuss human cloning.
Thomas Kaenzig, vice president of Clonaid and MCC philosophy instructors
Barry Vaughan and David Yount considered moral and ethical implications of
cloning
at a debate hosted by MCC’s Center for Global Tolerance and Engagement.
“We are not here to discuss whether or not human cloning has or has not
already taken place, because the purpose of tonight’s debate is to focus
on whether we should engage in the process of either reproductive or therapeutic
cloning and not to focus on whether or not that has already been accomplished,” Debra
Campbell, the debate’s moderator, said.
Kaenzig focused on ethical issues surrounding cloning, the need for education
and how both therapeutic and reproductive cloning can help people worldwide.
He was excited to speak at MCC. “I always like to come to academic institutions,” he
said. “There’s usually a lot of young, open-minded people.”
Kaenzig promoted cloning and its potential benefits “from the patient’s
perspective.”
Most people have an inaccurate view of cloning, which has lead to fears and
reluctance to pursue the technology and is due in part to media attention to
animal cloning
that has “mystified the term ‘cloning,’” according
to Kaenzig.
Kaenzig defended bothreproductive cloning to produce a baby; and therapeutic
cloning, which produces human blastocysts or embryos to harvest stem cells for
therapy and research.
Because stem cells can become any cell in the body, therapeutic cloning could
help people with diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, paralysis,
muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and cancer, Kaenzig
said.
“The total number of people that could benefit from stem cell-based therapy
is 134 million people, so if someone is saying cloning is unethical or immoral,
think about those figures,” he said.
Kaenzig defended reproductive cloning for infertile couples and others, or for
purposes such as allowing parents to clone a child who died.
“They know it is not going to be the same child, but it is as close as
they can get to the child they lost,” Kaenzig said.
Yount argued cloning is always “ethically wrong, no matter how appealing
the consequences.”
He stated cloning is not included in one’s moral right to reproduction.
Yount argued that research cloning is wrong because it takes a future human life
without consent.
“If you kill me, it’s not that I have a right to anything, but you’re
depriving me of my future, and no one has the right to deprive another of a human
future,” Yount said. The same is done when a human embryo is cloned solely
to harvest stem cells, he argued.
Yount also contended that people often must learn to “deal with reality.”
“Stem cells are not the only possible avenue to pursue in order to prevent
disease,” he said. He said a ban on human cloning would not necessarily
impede medical advancement, because researchers do not know where the technology
will lead or if the same knowledge can be gained from other procedures.
Yount said reproductive cloning because it is not possible to replace a person
and because there are unknown medical risks and potential psychological harm
to the clone.
“People need to deal with the fact that people die and not think in terms
of replacing anyone, because it technically cannot be done, even with cloning,” he
said.
Vaughan argued cloning technology is morally neutral, with no reason to proscribe
cloning and good reason to allow it.
Vaughan held that the common and most persuasive arguments against reproductive
cloning – which he divided into categories of religious, dignity, psychological
harm and genetic diversity arguments – are insufficient to ban the procedure.
Vaughan proposed arguments to show cloning is merely a facet of human rational
capacity and thus natural, and it has the potential to alleviate great amounts
of human suffering.
He maintained that “embryonic life” and economic arguments are
not enough for a universal ban on therapeutic cloning.
Vaughan said therapeutic cloning is justified to provide medical benefits and
reduce suffering. Given the shortage of organs available for transplantation
and the cost and difficulties of the process, “the possibilities offered
by therapeutic cloning are indeed significant,” he said.
“It is important to note that it does not follow from my argument that
any and all applications of medical technology are morally permissible,” Vaughan
emphasized.
All panelists encouraged everyone to explore the issues more thoroughly. “There
are no simple answers to complex moral questions, and I would caution us all
to be wary of anyone who would suggest otherwise,” Vaughan said.
Back to Top
| Previous Page | Home
|
|
|
