Essay On Human Cloning

In February of 1997, one of the largest ethical controversies was born with the birth of a lamb. After embryologist Ian Wilmut and his fellow researchers successfully cloned a sheep named Dolly, the possibility of cloning human life arose. Several states have already banned human cloning, but in general it is legal throughout the United States. Should the government allow human cloning? Or should it be done in general? Although the process has several benefits, it is seen as unethical and should be avoided. Cloning is defined as, “the process of producing an organism that is genetically identical to the unit from which it was derived (Dictionary)”. In order to clone an organism, DNA is extracted from a somatic cell and placed in an oocyte that has had its nucleus removed. The egg is than stimulated electrically or chemically to begin dividing to develop into an embryo. This developing egg can then be implanted into a surrogate mother in the same way one would use for artificial insemination. Although the idea may seem absurd, there are several benefits to producing human clones: including the additional research of cell differentiation and how to replace damaged cells with new ones, the ability to provide a genetically identical individual that can serve as organ donors, and capability of sterile couples to have children that will carry one of the parents genetic lines. The research that would accompany the cloning process would progress our knowledge how to produce human organs without having to produce an entire human. Considering the waiting list for an organ is currently around 121,390 people and about 22 die each day waiting on an organ, the production of organs without depending on volunteers would save the lives of thousands. Additionally, the ability to produce specialized cells could lead to the cure of degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s and even conditions like heart attacks or spinal cord injuries. By growing new cells, one would be able to replace those that are damaged and lead to the healing of the organ and overall better health of the individual. Without the ability to create human clones, this research may not be possible. Similarly, having a genetically identical clone would provide an automatic match for organ and tissue donations. Although UNOS does their best to match each recipient with the best donor, finding a blood and tissue type match could take more time than the damaged organ will allow. Sometimes people will wait for years for a match that never comes. Having a clone of oneself will guarantee a “back-up” organ if there is ever the chance they need one. However, this would impede on the clone’s rights to autonomy. They could feel forced into the donation of what is essentially their organs, and not the original individual’s property. The primary argument for allowing the cloning of humans includes the ability of couples to produce offspring that have the same genetic make-up of either the mother or the father. …show more content…
This would allow couples that are unable to bare children naturally to still have children that will carry on their genetic lines. If this process is possible, should the government be allowed to tell potential parents that they cannot use this process to reproduce? In this situation, it is difficult to decide whether it is unethical to allow the cloning of an individual, or unethical to not allow a couple to reproduce is there is no other possible way to produce their own offspring. Under these circumstances, reproductive cloning seems to be permissible. However, there are several issues with allowing couples to clone: including the decrease in diversity, the possibility to take the process further than simply having a child, and the unknown psychological effects that the clone and family members may face. …show more content…
The greatest of which would include the potential treatment of these clones. Would they be seen as simply a replacement for a lost relative or a just back-up set of organs? Perhaps they would be seen as inferior to their “original copy.” Through these views, I fear that clones would face unavoidable psychological issues as well as those they were cloned from. Perhaps through continuing research, alternative ways to produce organs and tissues for transplantation can be developed as well as a way for sterile couples to reproduce so that we can avoid the temptation to make human cloning a common