|
The "Great Debate" on
cloning (continued...
)
2. Commodification and
objectification: Although aspects of commodification are already
present among some of the assisted reproductive technologies now in
use, cloning technology catapults us further in that direction.
Right now, some people select the source of the sperm or eggs that
they will use with assisted reproduction on the basis of certain
characteristics of the egg or sperm donors. Some prospective parents
have offered especially large sums of money to would-be co-ed egg
donors from so-called Ivy League schools. Sometimes prospective
parents want the gamete donor to be blond, or smart, or
athletic.
Cloning, in contrast, is not
just a simple extension of what is already going on, but a radical
departure and even leap into the world of human genetic manipulation
and babies made-to-order, the world of so-called “designer babies.”
I will discuss this further in a moment.
Do we want to risk creating a
world in which our children are vastly more likely to be seen as
commodities, or objects made to manufactured specifications? Does
the extent to which we can produce our children according to certain
specifications increase the likelihood that we will treat them as
manufactured products? As objects that may or may not meet our
expectations? As commodities rather than human beings to which one
ought not to assign monetary value? Will we be more likely to see
our children with disabilities as inferior "products" and thus value
them and other people with disabilities that much less?
Although no one could prove
that human repro cloning would result in a vastly greater tendency
to thus commodify our children, neither could anyone prove that this
would not be the case. It is a very real risk that I believe greatly
offsets what relatively few advantages one might gain from having
reproductive cloning. Again, I would urge the precautionary
principle approach.
We might also pause here and
give consideration to the words of a noted heath care economist from
Princeton University, Professor Uwe Reinhardt: "Instead of necessity
being the 'mother of invention,' we now have invention being the
'mother of necessity' in this market-driven world."
3. Individuality and
personal identity: Many would argue that the production of
genetic duplicate humans challenges conventional notions of
individuality and personal identity in ways that would be
detrimental, especially in cases where a person would be cloned from
an existing adult. Some argue that we rob an individual of his or
her essential uniqueness by depriving them of certain unknowns, as
would be the case when a child is cloned from a grown person with a
known phenotype. Although one could make arguments for potential
harm that would result from the many strange familial relationships
that are possible with cloning, none of us can now know for sure
what would actually happen. For example, the child cloned from a
grandparent's genetic material would at the same time be the genetic
parent as well as the offspring of its own gestational or rearing
parent. That novel situation would certainly strike many of us as
bizarre, but we cannot know now exactly how or whether it would be
likely harmful to the child so produced. I will leave further
discussion of this to others, but I do acknowledge that there is
certainly SOME potential for harm, and thus I would want to be sure
of compelling benefits on the other side in order to be willing to
risk such harm.
4. Equity: For me, this
is always a relevant concern when considering new technologies that
are likely to be expensive and largely serve to widen the already
growing gap between wealthier and poorer individuals. The
development of such technologies often draws research dollars away
from other technologies and solutions that would confer significant
benefits to the wider public. I recognize that concerns about equity
usually fall upon deaf ears in our increasingly market-driven lives,
but I still hope that concerns about justice and equity might
someday be given more weight in debates like this one.
5. Procreative liberty
(reproductive rights): The key question here is: Do we take an
essentially no-holds barred approach to reproductive liberty? Do we
allow parents to create cloned children if there is no way yet to
prove harm to the offspring or gestating mothers as well as
inadequate data on the harm to women who undergo egg retrieval?
Should we view hrc as inevitably following from current
understandings of procreative liberty? These are questions well
worth exploring in some depth, with a full public discourse, before
we might allow human reproductive cloning to go forward.
Admittedly, there are some potential
benefits that some might cite:
What about using cloning to avoid
disease? (This is a topic for a longer discussion, but it should be
noted that preimplantation genetic diagnosis, already in use,
enables us to avoid a growing number of serious diseases and
conditions. In other words, PGD would be a viable alternative to
cloning in most of these cases.)
What about using cloning to produce a
replica of a dying child?
What about cloning the sole surviving
family member left after a genocide?
What about a situation where both members
of a couple are sterile and have no gametes, but wish nonetheless to
have a genetic relationship to their child?
What about the lesbian couple who wants
to have a child who would have the genome of one woman in the couple
and who would be gestated by the other, so as to gain a biological
connection for both parents?
There are certainly other such situations
in which reproductive cloning would provide the only way to achieve
these goals, but must society say yes to these possibilities even in
the face of the substantial harms that might result? Does our
obligation to help individuals procreate and to become parents mean
that we support new reproductive technologies at whatever price, in
terms of financial costs, risks to physical health, and altered
human relationships with potential harmful effects? I answer no to
that question, as I view procreative liberty as integrally related
to other social and ethical concerns.
For example, Professor George Annas and
others have noted how we have yet to develop reasonable and
enforceable policies regarding the rights, responsibilities, and
conflicts that may emerge among the 5 potential parents of children
currently born through the use of assisted reproductive technologies
(ARTs) - even 25 years after the introduction of in vitro
fertilization (IVF). When we add the option of having a nucleus
donor as well, we introduce the possibility of 13 different parental
configurations, as noted by the attorney Nanette Elster, with 4 to
10 competitors for the status of parent. This is yet another reason
to tread carefully in this area.
THE MATTER OF RESEARCH
CLONING
Finally, although not the primary focus
this evening, embryo cloning solely for research purposes deserves
some mention. Our organization and over 100 individuals and groups
signed a statement in 2001 calling for a ban on HRC and a moratorium
on research cloning that is available at our website:
www.ourbodiesourselves.org.. We also have our House and Senate
testimony on cloning posted at our website for those of you
interested. There, we explicitly indicate our support for embryo
stem cell research using embryos that would otherwise be discarded
from IVF clinics (and here we are in great disagreement with
President Bush and the Catholic church). We also note several
reasons why a moratorium on embryo cloning for research is prudent
public policy, including the question of risks to women’s health,
the need for further progress with conventional embryo stem cell
research, and the need to first address the use of this technology
in creating inheritable genetic modifications that go far beyond
treating serious disease and disability.
The last concern is my most pressing one,
as it is highly likely that experiments on human embryo cloning
would inevitably lead to human germline genetic manipulation,
whereby an embryo would be created according to certain
specifications, even if the original purpose of these experiments
for more narrow therapeutic purposes only. This path to designer
babies is fraught with enormous problems, including the potential of
stimulating a new and powerful eugenics movement. And unlike
Professor Robertson, I see many signs of the eugenics mentality
alive and well in our society today.
For example, consider the following
quotes from influential individuals:
Gregory Pence, Professor of Philosophy at
the University of Alabama:
"Many people love their retrievers and
their sunny dispositions around children and adults. Could people be
chosen in the same way? Would it be so terrible to allow parents to
at least aim for a certain type, in the same way that great
breeders…try to match a breed of dog to the needs of a
family?"
James Watson, Nobel laureate:
"And another thing, because no one has
the guts to say it: If we could make better human beings by knowing
now to add genes, why shouldn't we? What's wrong with
it?....Evolution can be just damn cruel, and to say that we've got a
perfect genome and there's some sanctity? I'd like to know where
that idea comes from, because it's utter silliness."
Arthur Caplan, noted
bioethicist:
"Many parents will leap at the chance to
make their children smarter, fitter and prettier….In a competitive
market society, people are going to want to give their kids an
edge…"
We must also remember that any germline
genetic manipulations represent inheritable modifications that would
be passed on to future generations in unpredictable and potentially
deleterious ways. It would be near impossible to stop the continued
transference of problematic consequences. A moratorium on research
cloning allows for the possibility of developing an adequate
regulatory framework that would seek to prevent such a scenario.
Bills that now allow human embryo research cloning to go forward do
not establish an adequate regulatory framework, as I hope we will
discuss later.
IN CLOSING, I would urge us all to give
serious consideration to the wide range of consequences posed by new
genetic technologies. For the topic this evening, each of us must
ask if, in the final analysis, we view HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE CLONING AS
FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED TO OUR BASIC HUMAN VALUES OR NOT. BY
ADDRESSING THE MANY ISSUES INVOLVED, WE CAN MORE CONSCIOUSLY MAKE
DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT KIND OF A WORLD WE WANT TO CREATE FOR OURSELVES
AND OUR CHILDREN.
Click
here to read more about feminist perspectives on
cloning. | 
