Most bioethicists appear to have much stronger moral objections to the idea of obtaining embryonic stem cells through therapeutic cloning than to the idea of obtaining them from left-over IVF embryos. Clearly the first option would be better from a medical standpoint because the resulting stem cells would be less likely to be rejected by the patient's immune system, since the genetic makeup of the stem cells would be identical to that of the patient (being a clone), while with the second option that rejection would certainly be likely, and thus a major obstacle in treatment.
The bioethicists who oppose therapeutic cloning claim that it is morally wrong because a human life is being created solely for the purpose of obtaining stem cells and then it is destroyed (quite different from a left-over embryo that would die anyway). But is this embryo really a human life? It might seem like a dumb question, because if everything is done correctly it would develop into a clone human being (if the technology was perfected). But think about how it is created: it isn't conceived naturally from a sperm and an egg, rather it is an egg with artificially inserted genetic material that is 'stimulated' to divide and form an embryo. If a human life is sacred, and for that reason it deserves respect, how can this cloned embryo be sacred if it is produced completely artificially, asexually in fact, and its really the scientist that's playing God to create it. Could it be considered a non-sacred, immitation form of life that is developed for medical purposes entirely, and thus does not deserve the respect and dignity of human life as we know it? Could then it be morally justified to create this embryo in order to destroy it, unlike what some bioethicists contend?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I believe a strong point is being made here. Yes there is technically the potential for life when embryos are stimulated, but as Vassily mentioned this is done in a completely artificial and medical context. In my mind this separation from that traditional reproductive union between a man and a woman is significant, but I would be interested to hear how someone like a right-to-life committee member would look at this situation.
Now the clear follow-up to this assertion is the role of artificial insemination. This is also the fertilization of an embryo through non-traditional means. So am I arguing that these embryos shouldn't have equal rights? Not at all... there is an distinction in my mind between what occurs in therapeutic cloning and directly bringing together a sperm and an egg for the specific purpose of having a child. At the same time, as I write this I realize the weakness of this argument in the eyes of some, which is typical of so many viewpoints in such a controversial debate.
Anything that is active and dividing is alive. We can spend our whole lives squabling about petty labels that never really achieve anything. Whatever is most efficienct at producing a successful result in my mind is what we should be most focused on. The U.S. has the most expensive individual based health care system in the world yet we don't have the best health care system. Infact we have the highest medical error rate of any country (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/medical_errors.html)
We as a country are ver ineficiant when it comes to health care and we need to work to improve that so not so much money is wasted and for those reasons we must aproach stem cell research efficiently. We need to find the most economicly sound tecniques of extraction and procedure so these services can one day be provided for all americans.
I'm rather torn within the topic of therapeutic cloning and believe that a line should be drawn when labeling exactly what is moral and what is not. I don't think that scientists should be able to clone humans as a whole because I am in agreement with the view that scientists would be, "playing God" in this case, to create. However cloning organs, etc I think is not immoral because it's not a life, but something that contributes for something to have life.
Post a Comment