Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
PortElliot2.jpg
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Weblog Links
Library
Fields
Philosophers
Writers
Connections
Magazines
E-Resources
Academics
Other
www.thought-factory.net
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'

shift in therapeutic cloning debate « Previous | |Next »
August 30, 2006

There is a debate about therapeutic cloning----cloning-for-biomedical-research----currently happening in Australia. There are some strange views despite the ban on reproductive cloning: ie., cloning-to-produce-children through the implantation in a woman's womb of an embryo created in the lab using a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer.

PryorVH.jpg
Pryor

The issue of the moment is: should we proceed with cloning for bio-medical research or should we continue the ban on cloning-for-biomedical-research?The quality of the debate is low.

Underpinning the debate are differing perspectives about the moral status of the cloned human embryo and the consequences for our moral sensibilities of legalizing their production and destruction. Peter Berkowitz usefully summarizes these perspectives in his review of the Kass Report ie., the report issued by the President’s Council on Bioethics, entitled Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry. Berkowirtz says:

On one end of the spectrum, where many scientists seem to reside, is the view that the cloned human embryo “should be treated essentially like all other human cells,” and hence is deserving of no more respect than any other microscopic particle. For those who hold this view, embryonic stem cell research presents no moral dilemmas, and therefore it follows that research should proceed forthwith. On the other end of the spectrum, where many pro-life conservatives stand, is the view that a human embryo, however it came into being, is deserving of the same respect and rights as a fully developed human being. For them, too, the moral issue is uncomplicated by consideration of other goods: Since it is immoral to create and then destroy a human being for the benefit of another, cloning-for-biomedical-research should be banned immediately and permanently (and indeed is in a sense worse than cloning-to-produce-children, which at least aims to bring a human being into existence, not to harvest certain parts of a developing human life and then discard it).

What about those who stand between the two poles?

Berkowtiz says:

In the middle are those who believe that the human embryo, a human being in the very earliest stages of development, is deserving of heightened respect, but less respect than a human being at later stages of development, say a fetus or a viable baby or an adult human being. And they believe that policies that implement systematic disrespect for developing human life are likely to have consequences for how fully developed human beings come to think of themselves and others. Unlike those who see no moral obstacle to the use and destruction of human embryos on one hand, and unlike those who see an insuperable moral obstacle to such use even for a good cause on the other hand, those who attach “intermediate and developing moral status” to the embryo face a stiff challenge in formulating policy. For not only must they give some content to the in-between sort of respect they believe is owed to nascent human life, they must also balance that good and its implications against other competing human goods.

Several years ago those favor of the four-year moratorium on research held that the potential of making discoveries that may reduce suffering and cure disease was outweighed by the combination of several considerations: the respect that is owed to developing human life; the need to debate and design effective regulatory mechanisms before research on cloned human embryos begins; and the need to prevent the moral harm to society that would result from further undermining our shared sense that human life must not be reduced to manufacture and marketing. Since then the ground has shifted in favour of proceeding with research on the grounds that what is owed to the millions who suffer debilitating diseases overrides what is owed to the human embryos.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 4:09 PM | | Comments (0)
Comments