Our readings this week focus on genetics: stem cell research & cloning. Zachary is going to summarize and provide a few
discussion questions on the reading by Kass. It is a perfect reading for him, don't you think? :) Then the rest of us will ..... discuss.
[Zachary: cut and paste your summary & questions into the first response after this post]
The outline won't fit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UEX9a_0acU5mI3-dapti9sRxRefLRe_RP6X4pv3VVnI/edit
ReplyDeleteDiscussion Questions:
1) We can see that cloning may lead to a source of organ or tissue donors for those who have diseases as cancer or heart disease. It is known that there is a high demand for organ transplants. Would you find this beneficial, or would you see it as unethical? Why or why not?
2) Is this concept any different from the one in Case 38 about delayed twins? How would you view this from an Ethics of Care point of view, taking into account the clone’s potential opinions?
3) Kass relates human cloning to the possibility that this world could turn into a Brave New World type of society, in which the less important citizens (or clones) were lower on the totem pole in society, and those citizens like us were higher. Would you find this to be a progressive concept that we should consider, or not? If not, explain what limits science has because of our ethical backgrounds, in terms of cloning.
Hi Zach! Interesting topic, and I have to say that I agree with the claims made by Kass.
ReplyDelete1. In some ways, I would see this to be beneficial to those who need the organs to survive. However, this would again show us humans trying to play God and defy the obstacles put before us. If it were not for these obstacles (cancer, diseases, tragedies) that not only control our human population, but happen to us "for a reason," then we would all be leading the same lives. These obstacles make us human and we have to believe that they are part of a bigger plan. By creating surrogate bodies to house our second pair of organs, that we may or may never need, we are defying the odds and not fairly living the lives we've been given.
2. I see this situation to reflect Case 38 perfectly. It is unfair to the unborn twin, and in this case the clone, to live in the shadow of one who was chosen to be superior to them. They will go through their lives questioning why they were second, and they are stripped of their individuality. From an Ethics of Care point of view, this is unethical because the best interests of the subject are pushed aside to satisfy the superior (i.e. parents or doctors).
3. This is definitely something that should not be considered. This would be completely dehumanizing and the clones would not be given a fair chance at life. Physicians are obligated to do what's in the best interests of their patients, and ethically they would not be able to produce a cloned human being because the consequences outweigh the benefits for that particular person. The physicians would also be making decisions for the clone without their consent, which is viewed as highly unethical as well. If given the choice, the clones would probably choose to not be created only to live in the shadow of their predecessor. If I was a clone, I'd agree! ;)
Okay lets try this again...for some reason the blog decided to delete my entry when I tried to post it so here goes...again.
ReplyDelete1)I think the cloning would be beneficial to the patients needing the transplants but unfair to the clone. It would be unfair to the clone to be created only to be used and then put aside. I agree with what Sam said about these things happening to us "for a reason". If we try to fix every illness then we would become overpopulated and ungrateful for the ones who are cured and healed.
2) This case is a perfect comparison to Case 38. The clone would live a life being compared to the 'original' version which would be unfair just as it was unfair for the unborn twin. The clone and the unborn twin had their choices taken away from them and weren't given a chance to live a life they wanted or chose to live. Looking at this from an Ethics of Care viewpoint it would be unethical because not only the best intentions of the clone but also of the unborn twin are being ignored to benefit others.
3)The society should not be considered. It would dehumanize the community as a whole and make it worse than it already is in today's world.There is already a social class gap and misjudgment of those who are 'lower class'. If this were to happen it would only further the gap and hurt the clones who would be seen as low class people.
1.) As the others have already said, I feel that this could be so beneficial when it comes to organ transplants, tissues donation, and more. However, this entire concept is completely unethical as it would mean that people would be bred simply in order to harvest their organs for the sake of another. What good is it to help another live at the cost of someone dying? In the end, someone still has to die right? Like Sam said, this would put the power of God into the hands of man...
ReplyDelete2.) As the others have stated, I feel that this situation reflects that of the situation in the Delayed Twinning case fairly well. In both instances, the younger twin/clone would potentially lead a much more difficult life as he/she would constantly be compared to the other individual. In modern society, normal siblings, especially identical twins, already have to deal with these comparisions. These comparisons put a lot of pressure and potential stress on individuals which in turn makes their lives harder. Along with this, they are subject to potential psychosocial issues as they grow up. From and EoC point of view, cloning would be unethical, just as delayed twinning is. The action of cloning a person does not strive to do the most good for the clone, and as such, the action should not be done.
3.) Going to go with a "no" to the whole "progressive society comprised of a tiered social system" thing. I just want to point out that we tried that in America about 200-400 years ago and it was so immoral that modern society is still dealing with the fallout to this day. A parallel can also be drawn between this hypothetical tiered society and India, where they have a very real tiered society in which certain people are stripped of their most basic human rights.. So would I consider this a progressive idea? No.
Because of the ethics surrounding cloning, science is potentially held back to a certain degree. If we considered cloning to be perfectly moral, then that would open up fields of different research and experimentation. All new drugs, vaccines, and more could skip animal trials and be used directly on humans. Organ transplant waiting lists would be things of the past. So much could be done if cloning were moral, but it isn't, plain and simple. Scientific advancement should never arise from unethical/immoral grounds. At least, that is how I feel on the issue.