Statement of the Problem
Cloning is the scientific replication of living creatures; which has become a divisive topic of discussion in our society. Conservatives and liberals have various views regarding what is right and wrong about cloning. The Health Services industry is not prepared to articulate and defend the effects and benefits of cloning to successfully conduct research and accept responsibility for guiding this new technology.
The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the perceptions of cloning human beings in our society from an economic, religious, and legislative point of view.
Introduction
The issue of human cloning became a worldwide concern when a cloned sheep named Dolly became a pseudo-celebrity in 1997. Six months old, she was reputed to be the first cloned mammal in existence. This led to an uproar about the next logical step: human cloning. Most individuals did not doubt that it could be accomplished; the main concern was whether cloning should take place. Among the concerns raised were:
- if human cloning is morally correct;
- if human cloning was ethical;
- the legal status and treatment of possible future human clones.
The idea of human cloning is hardly new. Recently, however, a great deal of speculation has taken place in the form of fiction through widely divergent views of how human clones would be treated. The 2005 movie “The Island” presented one such possibility: human clones are produced as storage vessels for body parts, unaware that they were produced at the behest (and great cost) of “sponsors”. When the “sponsor” requires a body part, it is extracted from the clone and the clone is calmly killed through lethal injection.
A contrasting vision took place in Kevin Guilfoile’s 2005 novel, Cast Of Shadows, in which cloning is legal and couples who cannot have children (or who do not wish to pass down genetic conditions) are inseminated with cloned DNA and live normal lives. The story becomes complicated when a doctor implants a clone in an unsuspecting mother in order to determine who killed his daughter. It may seem far-fetched, but the pro-life groups in the story who were willing to kill doctors rather than have them produce more clones is a bit closer to home than some would like.
Many scientists argue that human DNA is far too complicated to ever be reproduced; therefore, human cloning will never be a possibility. But what if they’re wrong? If it turns out that DNA is far less complex than anyone anticipated, our society will have to deal with the following issues:
- the moral and economic impact of cloning; and,
- legislation written specifically and exclusively for cloned individuals in order to determine their rights under the law.
How does the general public feel about cloning? In 2002, the Gallup Poll published the results of a survey of 1012 adults. These were the results:
- Do you think it is unacceptable to: Conclusion: the public majority does not agree with cloning for any reason, and the reproduction of humans is the greatest offender.
- Do you approve of cloning that is designed to produce a human being? Conclusion: Above all else, the public does not want to live among cloned human beings.
- Do you approve of cloning for research purposes (cloning that will not result in the birth of a human baby)? Conclusion: the public is split on whether or not cloning for research purposes is appropriate. It is entirely possible that with public education and an alleviation of their concerns, that the majority of the public might eventually be in favor of cloning for research purposes.
- Do the following situations justify cloning? Conclusion: Not even lives at stake justify the production of human clones.
The Moral Impact of Cloning: a secular perspective
The morality of cloning falls into two categories: secular and non-secular. Separation of church and state means that The Church (this encompasses religion in general) does not get to decide the law; though their views certainly have a great impact (same-sex marriage law has been greatly influenced by religious fervor). The first perspective on the ethics involved in human cloning will come from a non-religious standpoint.
The foremost argument against cloning is that clones lack a genetic uniqueness and that this would have a negative impact psychologically. According to Ralph Levinson and Michael J. Reiss in Key Issues in Bioethics: A Guide for Teachers, a child who is a clone might feel as if his or her destiny is already mapped out and that they have no control over their lives (p. 53).
For example, an individual who was cloned from a criminal might worry that they, too, will have a tendency towards illegal behavior. In contrast, a clone produced from a genius might not live up to the expectations set for him or her. One such example was in the young adult book, Anna to the Infinite Power by Margaret Ames. Anna is brilliant — a math genius and a musical prodigy. She is also a liar and a kleptomaniac. How can scientists know that producing a clone for his or her positive qualities is worth risking the negative qualities?
No one has ever conclusively determined if nature or nurture is responsible for human behavior. This leads to a “chicken and the egg” question: Are we able to solve the debate of nature vs. nurture through cloning? Or does nature vs. nurture determine whether cloning is ethically correct?
The next argument against cloning is the desire for what has been termed, “designer babies”. Individuals might prefer clones of supermodels, geniuses or athletes rather than the average person. This practice, however, is not unique, nor would it originate with cloning. For example, in March of 1999, an advertisement was placed in the student newspapers of Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, the University of Pennsylvania, and Yale:
Help our dream come true. A loving, caring couple seeking egg donor. Candidates should be intelligent, athletic, blonde, at least 5’10”, have a 1400+ SAT score, and possess no major family medical issues. $50,000. (Cohen, 2003, p. 35)
Keep in mind that this ad is not unique. Many couples who seek donor eggs (and have the budget to make demands) are very specific in what they’re looking for. This “loving, caring couple” is primarily seeking donor eggs from a woman who possesses all of the superficial qualities they would like to have in a child. The desire for a healthy child is secondary and comes at the end of the ad. One cannot say that the prevention of human cloning would also prevent designer babies.
Finally, the third most popular argument is that cloning would prevent diversity among the species. In the book, The Ethics of Human Cloning, Leon R. Kass and James Q. Wilson remind us of the principle of evolution: species make minor changes over time in order to adapt to the environment. Clones, of course, would be copies of people already in existence and would be unable to make those slight changes.
Producing a regular, large amount of clones might set back evolution altogether, much like resetting a video game while it is already in play – it can only start from a certain place, it cannot significantly move forward. The purpose of evolution is to prevent the extinction of a species: is it possible that humans could become extinct by using science to reproduce? It is highly unlikely, but one must consider the biological and genetic purposes of reproducing naturally, one of which is the prevention of incest.
Social identity is important in that it tells an individual with whom they may and may not reproduce, but clones would not have that social identity (Brannigan, 2001, p. 57). Close incest (father/daughter, brother/sister) can lead to serious birth defects. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to keep track of clones in order to prevent them from reproducing with close relatives.
The first religious objection to cloning is the research process itself. In order to research cloning and the feasibility of producing a human clone, it is expected that there will be failures. Some cloned embryos will not survive to maturity; several eggs will need to be disposed of. The Catholic and many multi-denominational Christian religions believe that this act is murder. These are the same groups, of course, that have pronounced that life begins at conception, so this view of cloning is not unexpected.
The next religious argument against cloning is that “cloning is a violation of what is God-given and natural.” (Brannigan, 2001, p.70) Roman Catholicism opposes cloning because it removes human procreation from sexuality and marriage. The Lutheran church has a similar perspective; they believe that cloning “turns procreation into a manufacturing process instead of a union between a lawfully wed man and woman.” (“Seeing Double, 2002, p.1)
However, not every religion opposes cloning, as many religions believe in the importance of reproduction regardless of the methods that need to be used. According to the article, “Seeing Double: The Cloning Conundrum”, Professor Abdulaziz Sachedian interprets the Qur’an to suggest that Muslims may seek cloning (or other genetic alternatives) to alleviate infertility. Liberal Protestant groups oppose cloning for reproductive purposes but have no objections to therapeutic purposes. Finally, Judaism has no specific objections to cloning, and often supports it when it is used for therapeutic purposes or if it is the last resort in order to reproduce.
Financial impact of cloning to the consumer (microeconomic view)
At present, fertility treatments do not include cloning. In the future, however, it is entirely possible that cloning will become both technologically possible and legal. If this happens, cloning may be offered as a fertility option along with IVF, donor eggs and several other procedures. What might it cost the average person to produce and give birth to a human clone? It is impossible to say for sure, but it might be based on the average cost of the following infertility procedures:
- Intrauterine Insemination : $345
- In Vitro Fertilization: $6,000
- Donor Frozen Embryo Transfer: $5,000
- Egg Donation (inclusive of all costs): $15,000
Cloning will require donor eggs; an individual who seeks out this procedure most likely does not want to pass on her family’s genetic background to their children (otherwise, they could choose one of the above options). The first cost, of course, is the basic $15,000 for the eggs. Most likely, cloning would cost an individual upwards from $15,000. Some might consider the cost worth the result, especially if the procedures are covered by medical insurance. In the end, there is one more way to create a designer baby – for those who can afford it.
The other side of donor eggs is an opportunity for the right women – cloning research will require many, many donor eggs and thus, women to produce those eggs. While women can be very well-paid and thus benefit from human cloning research, the other side is that the possibility for corruption:
- Four concerns have emerged about the use of egg donors in the now famous research led by Woo Suk Hwang of Seoul National University:
- some of the egg donors were members of the research team–that is, they were Dr. Hwang’s employees;
- some donors were paid (apparently the equivalent of about $1,400);
- researchers accompanied some donors as they went through the egg extraction procedure;
One of the concerns is that people are barred from payment for donating organs, so why would egg donation be different? The difference, of course, is the amount of time and effort it takes to self-inject hormones in order to produce a workable amount of eggs; also, eggs can regenerate – the donation of such eggs is not a one-shot deal.
Economic impact of cloning on the nation (macroeconomic view)
For many individuals, the idea of human cloning is as morally repugnant as abortion. For that reason, funding of cloning research will have to be undertaken very carefully. The first consideration is where the money will come from to fund such research. Anti-abortion advocates do not approve of using public funds to pay for abortions; most likely; they will also protest using public funds for human cloning.
In 2005, a bill was put to the Senate to approve funding for research involving stem-cell research, human chimeras, and cord-blood research. The main problem in getting the bill passed was that all of these issues were grouped together. The bill stayed with the Senate caught in a stalemate until it was finally rejected. It seems the public isn’t ready to fund anything to do with genetic engineering just yet. The same is true in Canada, where “Much of cloning and stem cell research is conducted by the private sector or with private funding, outside the purview of the NIH,” (Hall, 2003, p.1).
The economic impact on the nation is simple: until human cloning becomes an acceptable practice, it will be all but impossible to get federal funding to pay for this research.
Legislative Impact of Cloning
The current perspective on cloning in the legislature is that cloning is acceptable for therapeutic purposes, but unacceptable for reproduction. One might wonder why there is a difference, when the process is obviously the same.
The answer is simple: lawmakers are unable to determine if a clone can be considered a human being. If a clone is not a human being, then it is not subject to the same protection as a legitimate human being. In order to make cloning legal and to put the minds of the public at ease, legislators will need to take the following steps to protect the civil rights of clones, their families, and anyone they might choose to reproduce with in the future:
Determine the purpose(s) for which a clone may be produced.
Previously, the two purposes of cloning were discussed: reproductive and therapeutic. The results of the public perspective survey was not kind to either purpose, there are many arguments against cloning for any reason. Therefore, if human cloning were to be legal, the purpose would need to be determined.
Reproductive cloning is specifically for the purpose of producing a baby; this method is thought to be used for infertile couples or those who have undesirable medical conditions that they don’t wish to have passed down to their offspring. Therapeutic cloning involves producing clones in order to find cures for diseases, or to produce organs for transplant. The first task involved in the process of legalizing human cloning would be to decide which of these purposes (or both) would be legal.
Declare whether or not clones are human beings, and under what circumstances.
When defined specifically, it would be difficult to determine whether or not a clone is truly a human being. After all, some will be intended to be a part of a family; others will serve their purpose in the laboratory and go no further. Legislators will need to decide when a clone is a human being and when a clone is a “lab rat”. This might not even be possible. It could be that this is mutually exclusive: a clone is either a human or a lab rat.
Legally determine “social” and legal parentage of clones.
Biologically, a clone is the identical twin of the DNA donor. If Jennifer gives birth to a clone of herself named Rachel, then Jennifer is clearly Rachel’s birth mother. And if Jennifer raises Rachel herself, then she is clearly Rachel’s social mother as well. In genetic terms, however, Jennifer is not Rachel’s mother, she’s Rachel’s identical twin. This means that Rachel’s genetic parents are the same as Jennifer’s genetic parents. If this isn’t complicated enough, Jennifer’s mother becomes both the mother and grandmother of Rachel while Rachel’s aunt (Jennifer’s sister) is both her aunt and her sister. Rachel and her aunt/sister will have the same genetic parents. (Crysdale, 2002, p.1).
As there is no possible means of using biology to determine the parent of a clone, it will be necessary to determine a clone’s “social” parent; that is, the parent who is responsible for raising that child. This might involve adoption or a special dispensation upon the conception of the child when it is time to sign the birth certificate. This needs to happen before the child is born for the following reason: let’s say a couple decides to have a child through the cloning process.
The implantation of the embryo is successful and the “mother” is pregnant with the cloned embryo. The prospective father, however, ends up out of the picture for whatever reason. What obligations does this father have to an unborn child who is of no biological relation to him? This is why the issue of parentage must be managed ahead of time.
Protect the clones’ right to privacy in order to prevent retaliation by anti-cloning groups.
Genetic engineering, in any form, will attract those individuals who are against it. Often, those people belong to religious groups and use their doctrine to support their beliefs. For example, right-to-life groups insist that they’re trying to protect life, but they have no compunction about killing doctors who perform abortions. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that these individuals might not consider clones to be human and would take action to eliminate them.
One means to protect the privacy of clones and their families is to seal all medical records upon birth. These records would be open to no one (not even the parents in order to prevent them from providing proof to sell their story in the future) except for the actual clone upon becoming a legal adult. At this point, the clone could decide whether or not to reveal this information to anyone.
Require that clones can not be produced from living people.
The existence of a clone copied from a living person would result in far too many problems. The first is that there would be two people with the exact same DNA living and breathing and free to go wherever they wish. In Cast Of Shadows, Guilfoile uses that potentiality in order to present this idea: what if there were two men with the exact same DNA and one committed a crime in which DNA was found? How would the police ever be able to determine the perpetrator?
In the story, the clone framed his donor in order to implicate him in a string of murders the donor had committed; in real life, what’s to stop any individual from doing the same thing? DNA evidence in trials would become useless – the best defense would be, “My clone did it”.
Add a DNA parentage test to the requirements for a marriage license.
Clones need to have their privacy protected, so how do we ensure that a clone is not related to the individual they plan to marry? Even though there are over three hundred million people in the United States alone, no one would want to risk reproducing with a close relative and risking the birth defects evident in incest cases. The only way to do this would be to require potential spouses to take a DNA test upon applying for a marriage license.
The couple would only be contacted if there was a problem. The problem this leaves out is the large number of individuals who procreate outside of marriage. How would they ever know if they were creating a child with a close relative if their privacy had been protected? Another solution to the incest problem would be to render clones sterile. This, however, would defeat the purpose of parents who want grandchildren.
Conclusion
At this time, the general public is clearly not ready to live among clones. The moral and ethical implications are too great to consider pursing cloning for reproductive purposes. However, the public might be ready to consider cloning for research only. The benefit is that there would be no clones among the general population and it would be possible to pursue the cures for many diseases in the laboratory rather than depending on human subjects. The approval of cloning for research purposes would open the way for stem-cell and cord blood research.
If the public was ever ready to accept clones among the population, there would be a great deal of red tape and potential legislation to be passed before this could happen. When the public perspective on the ethics of cloning changes, the legislature needs to be ready with protection for clones.
References
- Beger, R. R. (2002). Expansion of Police Power in Public Schools and the Vanishing Rights of Students. 119+.
- Brannigan, M. C. (Ed.). (2001). Ethical Issues in Human Cloning Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. New York: Seven Bridges Press.
- Cohen, M. (2003). 101 Ethical Dilemmas. New York: Routledge. (2002 May). Detailed Survey Results. Retrieved Oct 27 2006, from Center for Genetics and Society Web site: http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opinion/detailed.html#2002gallup
- Hall, S. S. (2003). Eve Redux: The Public Confusion over Cloning. The Hastings Center Report, 33(3), 11+.
- Harris, J. (2004). On Cloning. New York: Routledge.
- Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry. (2002, October). The Atlantic Monthly, 290, 42.
- Kass, L. R., & Wilson, J. Q. (1998). The Ethics of Human Cloning. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
- Levinson, R. & Reiss, M. J. (Eds.). (2003). Key Issues in Bioethics: A Guide for Teachers. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
- Mcgee, G. (2000). Cloning, Sex and New Kinds of Families. The Journal of Sex Research, 37(3), 266.
- Odone, C. (2003, January 6). Scientists as Well as Cult Leaders Ignore the Moral Questions Behind Cloning. New Statesman, 132, 8.
- Wilson, J. Q., & Kass, L. (1999, March). The Ethics of Human Cloning. The American Enterprise, 10, 67.
