Human cloning remains the subject of ardent debate. Professionals and researchers argue on whether it is ethical to clone humans. Some refer to the importance of cloning for treating serious human diseases (e. g. cancer). Others suggest that cloning goes against religion and human ethics and should be completely forbidden. In this context, it is more appropriate to look at human cloning from a new biotechnological perspective: human cloning may become an effective instrument driving the development of progressive medical technologies that will help cure cancer and cancer-related complications.
Human cloning should not be forbidden, but should be used to treat serious health states, including cancer. Thesis statement: human cloning should be allowed for medical purposes, but should also be combined with effective preventive strategies, which would guarantee accountability, transparency, and legality of cloning procedures. Ethics of cloning: pros and cons Human cloning is a relatively new technology that may be successfully utilized to develop revolutionary approaches in medicine, and to form the basis for effective treatment of incurable diseases, including cancer.
Human cloning may “provide infertile individuals and couples with children, and by making cloned cells, you might find a way to make tissues and organs to treat diseases” (Howe 23). From the scientific viewpoint, human cloning is a basis for regenerative medicine: cloned organs and tissues do not trigger any immune response, and as a result, they do not require taking immunodepressive drugs (Howe 44). Reproductive cloning is a new branch of contemporary research that may help couples where both parents are infertile to have children.
Scientists suggest that human cloning may be used to stop or slow down human aging processes; the concepts of “replacement” and “persistence” cloning are actively used to denote the production of a cloned organism that will help obviate aging (Kass 50). For many, these perspectives are too fantastic to be true, but it is very probable that cloning will replace the majority of ineffective and expensive medical procedures and will make human population healthier.
With cancer having already turned into epidemic, cloning is very likely to prevent humanity from destruction. Unfortunately, certain social groups oppose to cloning; we should recognize that religion does not accept cloning and promotes the importance of more traditional medical approaches regarding cancer. Religion does not accept cloning. Religion opposes to cloning and “is among the more powerful factors that shape attitudes toward human cloning” (Santa Clara University).
With science moving ahead, religion remains one of the most serious challenges that need to be addressed, to turn cloning into an effective medical strategy. Religion does not welcome cloning as the means for technological reproduction; very often, religious adherents view cloning as the means of playing with God and producing bodies without souls. In this context, special distinction should be made between therapeutic cloning and cloning for commercial purposes.
Uncontrolled commercial cloning may lead to unpredictable outcomes. As long as cloning results in the production of similar genetic make-ups, commercial cloning will invariably lead to the loss of genetic diversity (Howe 49). The absence of genetic diversity may cause lower resistance of human organisms to new diseases. Cloning for curiosity is unacceptable, too. Thus, the use of cloning strategies should be limited to therapeutic needs and should be strictly controlled by the state.
Human cloning: allowed but controlled The natural question is why human cloning should be controlled? The answer is very simple: cloning has already caused revolutionary shifts in human thinking, and it should not turn into the means of earning illegal profits by changing the genetic structure of human population. “The success of production of clones from adult cells has over-shadowed the fact that there were countless errors before the ‘perfect’ clone could be produced” (Garcia 54).
The aim of regulative control is to guarantee that “imperfect” clones are not used for commercial purposes. Special code of ethics should be developed to control anonymity of cloning procedures, and to minimize the destruction of embryos. The government should develop and implement a set of measures that would control the use of human embryos for cloning and stem cell research; otherwise embryos risk turning into a commodity, which will be sold for profit, against all ethical postulates.
Regulation and control are required to guarantee accountability and transparency of cloning procedures in cancer treatment. Governmental control is required to ensure that potential losses do not overweigh the benefits of human cloning. Cloning has already caused a serious social shift, moving us closer to the scientific goals that have earlier seemed unachievable. Unfortunately, human nature tends to be unreasonable; scientific advances may turn into a plague that will kill humanity instead of saving it.
Undoubtedly, human cloning should be legalized and allowed, but it should be limited to therapeutic and research purposes. Cloning will eliminate the need for patients to wait for organ donation for years. Besides cancer, cloning may be used to address Alzheimer’s disease and heart failures, but these goals and outcomes will become realistic only under the pressure of strict governmental control. In this case, therapeutic cloning will become an official state strategy aimed at making national population healthier, and improving its demographic structure.
Official cloning strategies will help overcome the growing religious and social opposition, and will turn cloning into an acceptable therapeutic instrument used by medical institutions to save human lives. Conclusion Human cloning should be restricted to therapeutic purposes, and should be strictly regulated by the government and the state. Cloning may save humanity from serious health threats, including cancer. Effective preventive measures and regulative control will guarantee accountability, transparency, and ethics of human cloning procedures.
Strict regulative control will turn cloning into an acceptable medical approach that will improve health and demographic structure of national population.
Garcia, J. “Who’s Afraid of Human Cloning? ” A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life, March, p. 54. Howe, C. Gene Cloning and Manipulation. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Kass, L. The Ethics of Human Cloning. AEI Press, 1998. Santa Clara University. “The ethics of human cloning and stem cell research”. 2001. Santa Clara University. 24 September 2008. http://www. scu. edu/ethics/publications/cloning. html