Interests in Permitting Human Cloning - Essay Sample

The issue of cloning as a technological advancement in reproduction has been a debatable one. In Should Human Cloning Be Permitted? Patricia Baird argues that individual interests differ from the public good, and that when we are deciding whether or not to pursue Human Reproductive Cloning (HRC), we must place public interest above individual interests. In the article the author majors into examining the reasoning behind the permission or banning cloning which is a role delegated by the California State legislature. This paper will focus on highlighting whether cloning is a public or individual interest.

Cloning as a means of reproducing human beings has been rejected universally by a majority of people. According to the Economist, 90% of the United States population is opposed to human cloning. This represents a majority of the population who cite various reasons as to why they are opposed to cloning. However, some have argued that the data is pegged on the comprehension level of the participants on scientific terms. Otherwise, even if the people do not understand the research, they understand the consequences. Therefore, their opinions should be included in policy formulation. They can integrate and make decisions.

Cloning changes the integrity of human species. This is contrary to the public interest and predisposes the human species to long-standing consequences. Others have argued that cloning ensures predictability and eternal life to the human population in that the best species with the best characteristics are designed. These features include brightness, tallness, and disease resistance qualities. There are also concerns over interference with nature in that the natural composition of human beings allows them to be resistant to diseases and adopt the best qualities. Therefore, inducing cloning as a means of reproduction and ensuring better species denies nature the chance to play its course. On the other hand, this also hampers research on the best forms of human adaptation to nature.

A qualitative focused group research on human cloning by The Welcome Trust suggests that opposition to human cloning is universal. This goes to show that it is not only in the Unites States that the participants are objected to human cloning. Most of the participants cited reasons such as concern for the effects on the society and children. This means that cloning is an individual interest which is solicited by those who are not ready to pursue the natural means to reproduction.

Due to the individualistic interests of those professing cloning, the physical and psychological effects to the replicants are adverse. The proponents tend to forget about the social consequences of cloning (Lynn 18). For instance, cloning has been connected with being handicapped, congenital abnormalities, increased the possibility of cancer, premature aging, and even death. Furthermore, cloning is associated with diminished sense of identity and individuality with a rather foreclosed future. All these have psychological impacts to the clones which are rather sidelined effects. This is because the significant concept of human beings identity is in having a sense of stretching from a paternal or maternal line and being a unique creature. Research suggests that most children who are adopted or reproduced using donor insemination display increased needs to be aware of their biological origins. Consequently cloning makes them aware that they do not possess a dual genetic basis and thus are not linked to the human race in the matching biological characteristics. Ideally, the initial clone will feel misplaced and therefore will have to cope with the situation of being the first human clone and not being a product of the union of sperm and an egg.

Cloning turns procreation into a sort of manufacturing business. This will have longstanding effects on the disabled members of the community and the minority groups based on race or origin (Baird 73). The minority groups will not be able to bear the costs of cloning, and therefore there will be inequality and lack of respect to this population. With the advent of cloning, it will be a free market with a free buyer and free seller. Therefore, the demand for the cloning will eventually increase leading to a strain on the disabled and the minority groups. Even though cloning is based on the individual choice of reproduction and autonomy, resolving the issue at these premises is detrimental to the public interest. The collective and transgenerational effects of cloning have to be reviewed too.

Cloning leaves a huge amount of harms into the community while the individual enjoys the benefits of cloning. For instance, the gay couple might decide to undergo cloning to get a child at the expense of the general implications to the community. Therefore, this means that their interest supersedes the public interest. Cloning is unethical in that the individual interest supersedes the public interest (Benirschke 461). The need for an individual must not cause a shift in the way the general public conducts itself. The individual needs of the scientists to carry on with their research at the expense of the public is vilifying. Therefore the scientist has to include opinions from other disciplines such as sociologists, humanists among other members of the public. This is in a bid to safeguard the public interest.

The perpetrators of cloning base on weighing the benefits and harms to the individual as opposed to weighing the benefits to the community (Baird 72). Baird calls this a dangerously incomplete framing which means that the framing does not consider all the aspects. Even if they focus on individual autonomy and right to reproductive health, the protection of children, there seems to be other issues that are omitted. Therefore, there should be a paradigm shift from individual autonomy to the consequences clones posts to the future generations (Resnik 319). This is because tackling cloning from individual perspectives reduces the potentially harmful consequences to the society. This includes the child, the public, and the future generation. All these people have a say in the type of community they wish to live in.

Cloning is a means of commercialization and commodification of children and family establishments. This leads to viewing children as products thereby increasing social injustices. On the contrary, Chris McDonald in Yes, Human Cloning Should Be Permitted argues that there are other instances where children are seen as products (McDonald 78). In his analogy, he suggests that parents spent a lot of money in bringing up their children and therefore, expenditure on cloning cannot be equated to the commercialization of children. Instead, he argues that cloning should be permitted to those who are infertile and gay. Cloning can only be rated as an advantage to those carrying it out. For instance, other situations that are deemed necessary for cloning. This is unfounded since there are other means of reproduction such as sperm donation, adoption, and embryo donation. This proves that cloning is for individualistic motivations rather than public interest.

Works Cited

Baird, Patricia. A. Should Human Cloning Be Permitted?. 2nd ed., Canada, The Royal College of Physicians And Surgeons of Canada, 2000.

Benirschke, K. "Reshaping Life: Key Issues In Genetic Engineering, 3rd Edition." Journal of Heredity, vol 93, no. 6, 2002, pp. 461-a-462. Oxford University Press (OUP), doi:10.1093/jhered/93.6.461-a.

Lynn Festa. "Humanity Without Feathers." Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, And Development, vol 1, no. 1, 2010, pp. 3-27. Johns Hopkins University Press, doi:10.1353/hum.2010.0007.

McDonald, Chris. "Yes, Human Cloning Should Be Permitted." The Royal College Of Physicians And Surgeons Of Canada, vol 2, 2017, pp. 78-80.

Resnik, David B. "The Morality of Patents on Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis." Nature Biotechnology, vol 32, no. 4, 2014, pp. 319-320. Springer Nature, doi:10.1038/nbt.2865.