Cloning humans was once a fantasy of Science-Fiction authors, which now has become a reality. Cloning adult mammals is achievable now and is definitely in the reach of science. It has become clear once more how technological progress can force us to review our moral principles again. Cloning has been defined as the scientist’s ability to use DNA technology to produce exact multiple copies of a single gene or other segment of DNA, this means that every single bit of DNA is the same as the other.
Cloning, in these recent years, has become a very notorious issue. Society is firmly separated on the uses and morals of cloning. Cloning techniques can be used to produce copies of plants and animals to the extent of clones of humans and even human organs. But cloning can contribute for several positive aspects as well for the well being of society. For example, cloning animals can have several implications. Foremost, is the benefit of humans. First, cloning animals can help us understand the functioning of how our cells divide, multiply and operate, and also learn how to fix certain disorders. There lie numerous possibilities of making use of cloning in a positive way, but with that keeping in mind that every experiment has its own risks and loses.
But definitely there are major ethical, religious and political concerns regarding all these types of cloning, as it relates to humans. As researches state that cloning has a potential of creating a twin of an existing human, it also underlies the risks of severe genetic defects. During the procedure many embryos die, and only one succeeds out of the many. According to some conservative thought it is considered the death of a baby of a human being; hence, this technology is considered as highly unethical. Eventually a decision was evaluated collectively to ban the cloning of human beings legally, and so the policies are being obeyed in most parts of the world.
Types of Cloning
This is a medical process which produces monozygotic (identical) twins or triplets. It basically copies the method used by nature to produce twins or triplets. One or more cells are removed from a fertilized embryo and let them to develop into further multiple embryos. Thus, exact copies of a single gene or an identical DNA are formed.
This has been practiced for many years on various species of animals, but only very less experimented on humans.
Through this technique the scientist intends to produce a twin of an existing mammal. It has been experimented on sheep and other mammals. The DNA from the nucleus of an ovum is replaced by the DNA from the other cell, which has been removed from an adult animal. Now the fertilized ovum is implanted back in a womb and allowed to develop into a new animal. Up to 2002 it had not experimented on humans because it is lawfully forbidden. Some rumors say that Dr. Severino Aninori had initiated this experiment cloning through this technique. But studies state that even if such cloning keeps a potential of producing a twin of an existing human, it also keeps the potential of having severe genetic defects, later on. For such reasons, cloning is considered to be a deeply immoral procedure when practiced on humans.
In this cloning technique the initial stages are similar to reproductive cloning. However the stem cells are removed from the pre-embryo in order to reproduce a tissue or an organ that can be transplanted back into the person who supplied the DNA. Therapeutic cloning is a better way of transplanting human organs rather than facing the risk of organs transplanted from other humans.
Human Cloning and Medical benefits
Human cloning is becoming a realistic possibility with time. Scientists believe that this study can be successfully completed. On July 5, 1996, a sheep named Dolly was born in the Roslyn Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland. Dolly was the first clone of a mammal from an adult cell. The birth of Dolly also gave birth to the possibility of another idea, the cloning of human beings. This has lead to a great controversy and the question of whether cloning humans is right.
It is believed by some people that cloning of humans could be helpful for medical benefits; otherwise some people have some very strict religious and ethical issues with it. Due to cultural and religious beliefs, morals, and common ethics cloning has become a major controversy all in itself. In society what some observe it as scientific advances, others view as governmental control and that creates confused feelings about cloning(Levine, 2007).
Separating nucleus of cell from the embryo at the blast cyst stage, they can be cultured to produce pluripotent stem cells, which are capable of developing into blood, muscle or many other kinds of tissues and organs of the body. Many medical biologists regard this field a very much promising for future cures of diseases which have not been yet explored, since embryonic stem cells can be systematically produced in laboratory Petri dishes.
For example, a stem cell can be transformed through laboratory cloning processes into a blood cell or even into a cardiac muscle cell, which could easily injected into the heart of a cardiac patient, in order to reverse a malfunction. In this manner, researchers hope in due course to use these versatile cells to overpower chronic or degenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease or diabetes, which have make miserable lives of millions of people.
Cloning can ring from producing duplicates of plants and animals to clones of humans and human organs. In that addition to that cloning can also prove to be very encouraging for the welfare of the society. For example, sheep have a disease of the brain, called Scrapie, which causes tremors, loss of motion, and eventually death. Cloning might cure such disease. Whereas through therapeutic cloning we can grow replacement organs, which could become easily available to sick and dying people and we may also learn to cure cancer. That could save innumerable numbers of lives, and increase the quality of life of many others. Other cures discovered might include the use of insulin-secreting cells for diabetics, muscular dystrophy, nerve cells to help cure stroke or Parkinson disease; or liver cells to repair a damaged organ.
Further advancements can be thought of to understand how regeneration of organs would increase the range of possible treatments that could be considered. Cloning has now become cloning for parents who can have a twin child at a later date or time in life(Turner, 1997).
But even if incase a cloned child is born today we will have to wait at least twenty years or more to make sure they have no significant genetic problems. This will all affect the sense of individuality.
Although human cloning can be extremely beneficial for medical research it can also help us find cures and treatments to those diseases that we cannot yet elucidate.
It is very much expected that the cloning of human beings will just cause chaos and havoc and only lead to serious problems. If this technology were to become available, society would be capable of cloning all types of people for their own benefits. As there could be powerful and greedy leaders in some generation who may seek to abuse this technology for their personal purposes.
On the other hand, Scientists that oppose human cloning feel that the health risks are too high. By cloning those damaged cells could be reproduced that are unable to replace themselves. Although this is an advantage to cloning, this process wouldn’t have much as an impact on society, as cloning an entire human. There are also certain disadvantages to cloning human beings. Also, being able to clone any one person will spoil the sense of individuality that we possess.
Cloning plants can have constructive effects for humans. Scientist can clone plants and modify them to generate healthier food. For example, oranges which carry an abundant amount of Vitamin C, can be altered to include Vitamin D and Calcium as well, which is found amply in milk. Cloning can also help improve the condition of hunger-stricken Third World nations. Fruits and vegetables can be cloned to produce multiple amounts of food without being worried about the growing season, climate, or any other environmental issue. They can also be altered to be able to be grown in diverse environments or to produce surplus amount of food and for a longer period of time.
Religious and Ethical issues
Media has played a popular role in creating the world’s unconstructive imagination about cloning. It has simply demolished the sense of possibility of cloning in real world, but has been symbolized as an absolute science-fiction icon than a concrete scientific experiment. For example, a thriller novel, The Boys from Brazil, later made into Hollywood film in 1978, portrayed a Nazi war criminal that raises a whole colony of young Hitler “clones”. For many people, cloning has implied a hint of human immortality. Media speculations have unavoidably intruded into the cloning discussion, whereas Dolly was a great step that added concern to talk and think about human cloning (Bellomo, 2006).
There are several types of issues to consider when it comes to cloning. Ethical issues are those that consider the potential of moral outcomes of cloning technologies. One of the major reason why it is regarded utterly unethical is so because, as has been marked out by scholars and politicians, early human experiments are probably to result in a number of clinical failures and lead to miscarriage, the necessity of dozens or even hundreds of abortions, or births of extremely deformed offspring. Current study of mammalian cloning also confirms that a number of defects and malformations often give way in the reprogramming of the egg, which do not notify themselves until later in the life of the resultant clone. Hence, many mature clones have often undergone spectacular, unforeseen deaths.
The dangers for early prospective clones are controversial and difficult to manage because, one is attempting to protect a future concealed person against harms that might be inflicted by its very existence, and because societies around the world have specified that the early cloning experiments will violate a usual barrier that is moral in character, accounting humans into a realm of self-engineering that vastly exceeds any prior experiments with new reproductive technology(Morgan & Lawton, 1996).
The cloning is not a one sided debate, it involves all kinds of people from scientists, legislators, to religious leaders, philosophers and international organizations, but not always harmoniously. They evaluated this conclusion that human reproductive cloning i.e. for the purposes of producing a human genetic-copy baby is highly not ethical.
Therapeutic cloning creates a new being without the involvement of a father, and reduces the mother to the provider of an almost an emptied egg. Cloning a human being has become more of an ethical problem circling the society than the idea of cloning a plant or animal. Government is trying and has been successful to some extent to form certain restrictions that stop or prohibits human cloning.
In addition to the obvious risks to the clone child, those who oppose human cloning point to the repugnant style of reproduction with such deep possibility for conceit, arguing that the freedom of children and nature of the family are in danger. People who advocate cloning recommended that, it might serve as an advanced but, unusual way of treatment for infertility. It helps give a chance to those couples who are not capable of passing their genes to future generations, to accomplish that they wish for a twin which can help strengthen their family bond.
And the question that is still asked today by many is, do you consider or believe that cloning a human is a good idea? And should it be acknowledged in our society? In most cases people don’t suggest human cloning is a good thing. Yet at the same time a lot of people seem to be in agreement with the idea of human cloning, because the two are thinking on two totally different levels. They think of as scientific advances could determine the faith of mankind. Or they simply have an implication of their own on what cloning means to them. There appears to be no hope of reaching to an agreement on the ethics of human cloning from young embryos. Most people seem to respond to the idea of cloning at a more basic level.
A Conservative thought: If humans “make” babies rather than “have” babies, does that denote they are playing God? It states that it is a new human life and the purpose to destroy it and bound its use to scientific research for only therapeutic cloning combines further the moral and ethical issues rather than protecting mankind. As per se, cloning embryonic human life under any circumstances cross any ethical line, takes an irreversible step, from which science can never turn back.
Social issues involve the impact of cloning on society as a whole. Many religious groups are not in favor of cloning because they feel that it is immoral to mimic natural creation. They say that human cloning is unethical and that we should not be defying the ultimate foundation of natural creation. Some religious groups, particularly Evangelical Christianity and Roman Catholicism, believe that the fertilized embryo is like a human being with full human rights. Dividing that “baby” in half during an embryo cloning procedure would be interfering with God’s objective. It is like playing with life of humans even before they are completely born, which is a very immoral act. During the cloning procedure, when many cloned zygotes die, just after a few cell divisions; it would be just like losing human lives.
Thus, their loss is considered as serious as the death of a new born baby. These same conservative Christians would perhaps also be distressed at the use of cloning to extract genetically defective fertilized ova in therapeutic cloning procedures. The procedure may result in taking the life of one of the clones during the genetic testing. Since each of the clones is regarded as individual human beings for them, this would be murder. A soul is regarded as weightless, colorless, odorless, and may not exist. But it is a concern to some believers. Fortunately, therapeutic cloning is comparable to the natural processes that produces identical twins.
The manufacture of Dolly, the clone sheep at created in Roslyn, Scotland labs of Biotechnology Company PPL, Therapeutics did not consider any characteristics of issues like social, religious, or scientific, as conception: dolly was just the result of an experiment which involved the fusion of egg with the sperm and the bond of the two resulted as fertilized egg to the wall of the uterus. The genetic and cellular material that created Dolly indeed might not even meet the criteria in traditional terms as an embryo, in that mammalian embryos are scientifically defined by how they come into being. It is quite difficult to divine “what is in the dish” where a “clone” is being created, a problem that curses all those who would describe and regulate the creation and investigate on embryonic progenitors of a clone.
By analogy, many have hypothesized as to whether a human clone lacks traits necessary for true independence from parent progenitors whether a clone is entitled by disparity to feel that a progenitor (genetically its monozygotic clone) is the right parent and many common people in the west identified the most significant problem of cloning as whether a clone would posses a soul. It is a very difficult to understand human cloning in terms of traditional values and contemporary institutions of science and parenting, it has proven to be a most difficult challenge.
Ethical Issues regarding Human Reproductive Cloning are that it does not possess any Technical and medical safety, it clearly undermines the concept of reproduction and family, it gives way to ambiguous relations of a cloned child with its Progenitor, to a great extent cloning induces a confusing personal identity and deeply harms the psychological development of a clone. Concerns arise about eugenics, the concept of cloning is pretty much contrary to human dignity, and the most inhuman impact it has later on is the promotion of such trends towards designer babies and human enhancement. It develops a greed in every to have a better body parts and so they cant help transforming into an artificial body that looses its original identity and remains nothing but commodity or an item that could be displayed in a museum. It forgets all ethics that an individual possesses.
Cloning involves a high failure rate, as out of 300 embryos only one embryo developed successfully. Such experiments with humans are totally unacceptable. The high failure rates which are more than 90 percent and high morbidity of animal cloning strongly suggest its inapplicability to humans.
It is surely difficult to clone animals from adult somatic cells that makes up most of the body, because the DNA from the adult cells have to be reprogrammed. The French cow was cloned from a cell obtained from the ear of an adult cow that was an embryonic clone. Reynard and his team suspected that something went wrong in the cloning process, because it later affected the clone’s genetic reprogramming which stopped its immune system from developing. When the cow died there was no proof of infection or malformation but a post-mortem examination explained that the spleen and lymph nodes had not formed properly.
Hence, cloned animals happen to suffer high malformation and disability rates. Dolly herself finally died in 2003, at just the age of six and a half years, even though many sheep live more than 10 years at least. She had developed a progressive lung disease, which is usually found in older sheep, and she also produced premature arthritis. Some cloning experts have consequently imagined that cloned humans might need hip replacement surgery while still young and might suffer from senility just by the age of 20.
The ethical implications of cloning, especially with relation to humans, seem to defy easy limitation. Even if as though issues with cloning technique are resolved with time, many questions still remain. On what conditions could reproducing children by cloning be allowed or prohibited? What would a child born by asexual reproduction experience life, as an exceptional individual or as a genetic “prisoner”? Is a cloned child just a twin of its genetic donor, with a certain time difference? These and other such issues now preoccupy scientists and bioethics that see great potential to endanger human identity through cloning.
The idea of cloning raises serious issues about identity and individuality, the meaning of having children, the difference between reproduction and manufacture, and the relationship between the generations. The donator of the genome will have the option to live near the child or meet it later because the donor might probably not have any instinctual feelings to it. Thus upbringing of the cloned child is much more difficult than upbringing of a normal child, because gradually the child will face social isolation, psychical damage he has already inherited, and of course serious identity crisis.
As the child may feel a unique person its personality may develop much different from its progenitor. Genome doesn’t necessarily transfer the desired talent and qualities. Parents are disappointed as their desired expectations are not probably fulfilled; as a result child grows up in isolation.
In cases of corporeal and organic research there’s another possibility that ethical concerns for scientific research might be ignored and considered as irrelevant for clones. For sociological purposes clones will be used as bodies for test from the beginning of their lives, may develop totally desolate personality, high psychological damage and social isolation, which may even lead to suicide. Some fun loving people might create clones for the sake of entertainment or other game shows or even keep them as virtual house pets, which would be a very hideous thought; human being used a robot or a mechanical or an industrial object.
From the eye of a scientist working in his lab, is more concerned about his medical experiments, these clones are no humans but just his subjects on whom he may experiment with radiations, chemical substances or even biological weapons. Thus, for them humans are just guinea pigs, where life loses its value. Only possibilities that remain are to use disabled persons for medical “research”, where humans are now valued and sorted into those; who may exist and those who must not. Thus, Clones are generally considered as not life worthy. Now question remains that can the law prevent it. Laws that would prevent the birth of a first clone are intricate because they negotiate complex jurisprudential view: protecting an as-yet nonexistent life against reproductive dangers, in a western world that, in legislative and case law at least, favors reproductive autonomy.
Legal issues require researchers and the public to help policymakers settle on whether and how cloning technologies should be regulated by the government. After several considerations of such ethical issues many countries have come to a common decision and some further regulations that Cloning must certainly be regulated and, should be banned — especially in this emerging stage, for it is likely to create heartbreaking birth defects. This decision was then made legal by the contributions of the concrete research made by Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (1997), elaborated by UNESCO(Bereano, n.d.).
Actually the truth is that cloning is over-hyped. In the end, it is implausible to have anything close to the historical significance of genetic screening — an innovation with which it is often paired, but one that is likely to have a far more reflective influence.
In particular, parents may often opt for cloning since they hope to “replace” a child who has died too young. But that hope will always be disappointed: Clones will look as similar as an identical twin to the progenitor who donated the DNA, but they will probably be very diverse in personality, for they will be raised in a different environment. Thus, the idea of “replacement” will always be an illusion.
The outcome is expected to be psychological trauma for everyone in the family: the disappointed parents, and the child who cannot live up to their hopes. This risk seems to recommend that cloning should be banned even assuming it is someday perfected. As consensual incest, it may be a choice that society thinks is simply too harmful to allow people to make.
There is also a disagreement to the contrary, however — in favor of permitting parents to make the decision to clone. Without a straightforward, clear rule or, indeed, a constitutional right) that pronounce parents may do as they like when it comes to reproduction, hence, the government may interfere in reproduction and parenting in disconcerting ways — and that is something the courts have constantly refused to allow to happen.
Legal scholars have argued that cloning may abuse a child’s right to an open future. A child born as a genetic copy of another may feel too much pressure to become like or dissimilar from its progenitor. Yet a right to an open future is difficult to authenticate by common law or analogy to ethical analysis about parenthood.
Parenthood is basically the knowledge of ethical and traditional values that is taught to children in an act of stewardship. Perhaps children do not ever have wholly open futures. Failing an absolute standard, society will have to find ways to reconcile differences among the various kinds and degrees of parental control and improvement of children. While it is tempting to describe cloning as either a fundamental new form of parenting or as twinning, either analysis does not succeed in taking account of the need for new ways to integrate the problem of cloning into social institutions before it turns out to be an accepted form of reproductive medicine.
In France, the National Consultative Ethics Committee for Health and Life Sciences (CCNE) lectured on central dilemmas when in 1997 it rejected the idea of human reproductive cloning. The concept that perfect genetic similarity would in itself lead to perfect psychic similarity is lacking of any scientific establishment, including that human cloning would cause a basic upheaval of the close relationship among hereditary identity and personal uniqueness in terms of biological and cultural scope.
Other nations agreed that cloning involves sheer risks notably to mothers and babies. For Japan’s Council for Science and Technology, human cloning had no usefulness to acclaim its practice. It further added that medical experiments using human cells obtained through cloning may lead to breeding of human beings and destruction of human rights. Furthermore, the Japanese expert committee concluded that asexual reproduction through cloning would destroy the family perception in their society.
A study on Bioethics in the United States experienced that efforts to clone a human would be unethical at this time because of safety concerns and the possibility of harm to those who are involved. In Tunisia, the National Medical Ethics Committee inspected the issue of reproductive cloning at the request of the Minister of Health in 1997 and concluded that all types of technology of human cloning should be banned. It deemed the practice of cloning as undermining the concept of human reproduction and the degradation of dignity of human individual beings, and stands as an open door to all forms of abuse.
Around 30 countries which include, Colombia, Denmark, Georgia, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Norway, Peru, Australia, Spain and United Kingdom have so far sanctioned a variety of policies that prohibit human cloning (Turner, 1997)
The US Department of Defense insists on taking DNA samples from all its personnel, presumably for identification of those killed in action and body parts from military accidents, despite the fact that the samples are to be kept for 50 years (long after people have left their active duty), the program comprises civilian employees, the agency refuses to issue regulations barring all third party use, and the Department will not acknowledge waivers from the next of kin of subjects not wanting to donate tissues. .
Policies for criminal investigation in the context of DNA identifications are being constructed. The FBI has been endorsing the genetic screening of criminals to establish state DNA identification data banks to be employed in criminal investigations; indeed, cloning, gullibility, or some combination of these factors – have spread reports that badly misrepresent the differences between the competing human cloning bills in Congress.
The purpose of this document is to clarify what the argument is really about. In reality, neither side’s cloning bill would confine research on human ova (“eggs”), and both sides’ laws would allow the use of human cloning techniques to reproduce human DNA, cells, organs or tissues. Furthermore, neither side’s cloning policy confines research using stem cells taken from the embryos produced through in vitro fertilization – whether it involves embryonic stem cell that were established in August 9, 2001, or from embryos newly obtained from IVF clinics. The fundamental difference is this: The Brownback-Landrieu bill (S. 658) and the Weldon-Stupak bill (H.R. 1357) would ban the manufacture of human embryos through cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT), while the competing bills suggested by Senators Hatch (S. 876) and Feinstein (S. 1520) and by Congresswoman Bono (H.R. 1822) would permit human embryos to be created by cloning and then killed for biomedical research.
Cloning, the Latest Technology
The risks and dangers are always expected in cloning; in relation to the ethical issues, that should cloning succeed in producing a healthy child or not. It may succeed in becoming a part of the latest reproductive technologies presently offered to those with adequate funds.
Such rapid advance researches in cloning have denoted genes have become a business commodity. The encouragement of an ideology of geneticization fosters the belief that genes are determinative of an individual’s behavior, character, and future.
Capitalist economic relations have created a scramble for business enterprise capital, the altering of patent laws, and calls for mass genetic testing by researchers who trade on the old image of the philanthropic scientist to hide their conflicts of interest in testing labs, patents, consulting contracts, etc.
The convergence of a number of technical and social trends has greatly improved the capacity for using genetic techniques for observation(Monroe, Miller; Tobis,2007). The scientific discipline of genetics is a flourishing new industry in a large part by the federally financed Human Genome Project. The goal of this ambitious research is to identify every gene found in the human body, perhaps 100,000 in all. Some time back, the US government and a private corporation proclaimed that they had “completed the map” of the genome, although actually there are still many loopholes that have to be filled. Much related research focuses on genetic diagnostics, which are tests designed to identify genes thought to be associated with various medical setting. More than 50 new genetic tests have been acknowledged in the past five years alone.
The escalating speed, sophistication, affordability, and interconnectivity of computer systems permit the rapid monitoring and matching of many millions of records. A 1994 benchmark study by the ACLU established that Americans are deeply concerned about there personal privacy.
New technologies do not benefit everyone likewise. Technologies are not value-neutral; they typically represent the perspectives, purposes, and political objectives of powerful social groups. The prevailing philosophy in Western society proclaims that science and technology are value-neutral, and the only problems caused by technologies are either “externalities” (unintentional side effects) or abuses. However, because technologies are the result of human interventions into the otherwise natural succession of activities (and not acts of God or of nature), they are themselves actually instilled with human intentions and purposes. Current technologies do not equally benefit all segments of society and indeed are not anticipated to do so, although to maximize public support for these developments and to minimize potential opposition, their proponents hardly ever acknowledge these distributional ramifications.
As cloning needs large capital, new technology is prejudiced by only the rich and powerful. The United States is a society in which the differential access to wealth and power has been intensified during recent years. Thus, those people with more power can determine the kinds of technological advancement that are researched and implemented. Because of their size, scale, and requirements for capital investments and for knowledge, modern technologies are commanding interventions into the natural order. They tend to be the mechanisms by which already powerful groups lengthen, manifest, and further consolidate their powers. Thus, technologies themselves are not considered neutral; they are social and political phenomenon. Genetic technologies and computerization reveal these characteristics, and reproduce power differentials in our society.
The resulting environment of technological triumphal appears to offer omniscience — capabilities of enhanced observation and control over people and events, as well as promises of perfectionism thus leading to both a loss of privacy and increased opportunities for discrimination by dominant entities. Predictability will replace a tolerance for natural deviation and diversity.
Lack of privacy
Genetic privacy, like medical privacy in general, involves notions of the dignity and honor of the individual. For example, is the information correct can individuals access their personal files; can the donor correct inaccurate data, are the custodians faithful and are technical security systems protecting the data carefully from all possible concerns can the individual access to the information which third parties can access, too, etc.
Insurance problems for Genetic Disorder
People have been deprived of health insurance because of genetic screening. Genetic discrimination is another major national liberty threatened by research done by genetics. Scientists working with the Council for Responsible Genetics have documented numerous cases where healthy people have been deprived of insurance or employment based on genetic predictions. Of course, comparatively only few genetic diseases are deterministic; most tests which have intrinsic limits to themselves cannot inform us if a genetic mutation will become obvious; if it does so, it cannot tell us when it will crop up in life and if it happens, how severe the condition will be. In addition to that, many genetic conditions can be controlled or treated by interventions and environmental changes; that is why governments authorize testing newborns for PKU(Genetsky, Anderson ; List, 1997).
The growth of the obsession for testing in the US is a demonstration of class relationships, through new technological possibilities: employers test employees, insurance companies and health organizations test patients, college officials test students, and legislators pass bills to investigate a variety of disempowered groups (welfare recipients, prisoners, immigrants and the like). Such humiliation is never foisting upon the ruling class by the masses. Examples of such discrimination include: An HMO affirmed in a case that a pregnant woman, whose fetus tested positive for cystic fibrosis, was informed by her health maintenance organization (HMO) that it would be only willing to cover the cost of an abortion but would not cover the infant under the family’s medical policy if she elected to carry the pregnancy to term. The insurance company rejected her because they discovered it mentioned in her medical account. A fit and healthy man who was among 20s only had a problem of gene for the degenerative condition of brain: a Huntington’s disease, he was immediately refused from achieving life insurance. Another case involved a well woman in her 30s whose hereditary test indicated a 70 to 90 per cent risk of developing cancer. Despite the regular screening for cancer, her life cover components were refused(National Right to Live , 2005).
Federal legislation, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA, 1996), restricts genetic discrimination as a basis for denying certain insurance medical insurance policies, but it does not ban charging higher premiums, nor does it cover life, disability, or automobile insurance or to employment , all areas of documented discrimination. Gradually, state by state, the CRG, ACLU, and patients’ rights groups are trying to get legislation approved to reduce or eliminate genetic discrimination about 40 states have ratified some kinds of safeguard, but many were found very weak.
This legislation would attend to some of the discrimination problems which have been occurring. And he has issued an Executive Order barring genetic discrimination in Federal employment.
Thus, the politics of genetic technologies must be scrutinized regularly as our fate is not determined exclusively by genes only; environmental factors play an important role, too.
Cloning offers outstanding insight into the power of creation that humanity has taken into its fold. One theological analysis holds that humans are co-creators with God; perhaps it is more accurate to say that humans are moving ever closer to a position of manufacturing babies, rather than having babies. Cloning represents a remarkable test of human self-control, wisdom and institutional development, one that will in many ways identify the moral features of 21st century biotechnology.
Beyond the risks of prejudice and loss of privacy, however, society’s enthrallment with genetic determinism has other social and political consequences. An overemphasis on the role of genes in human health neglects environmental and social aspects, thus contributing to the image of people with “defective” genes as “damaged goods.” This, in effect, encourages a “blame the victim” mindset, directly contrary to the public policy personified in the Americans with Disabilities Act, 10 years old. The Economic and social resources ended up discovering biomedical answers whereas social events get short-changed.
Another reason why cloning is probable to continue to have only extremely limited popularity is that it suffers, and is likely to persist to suffer — a strong social disgrace.
Although new technologies declare to offer us more freedom, they really can threaten our civic values. This is certainly true of the new biology. As Jefferson warned, the price of liberty is never-ending vigilance it isn’t genetically hard-wired to happen automatically.
1. Bellomo, M.(2006) The Stem Cell Divide: The Facts, the Fiction, and the Fear Driving the Greatest Scientific, Political, and Religious Debate of Our Time. AMACOM
2. Bereano, P.(n.d.) Does Genetic Research Threaten Our Civil Liberties?.Retrieved on August 21,2008 from http://www.actionbioscience.org/genomic/bereano.html
3. Genetsky, B. , Anderson, P.; List, I.(1997). Electronic Companion to Genetics . Electronic Companion to Genetics
4. HowstuffWorks.(n.d.).Reteived August 22, 2008 from howstuffworks.com
5. Levine, A.D.(2007) Cloning: A Beginner’s Guide. Oneworld Publications
6. Morgan, P.& Lawton, C.(1996). Ethical Issues in Six Religious Traditions. Ethical Issues in Six Religious Traditions
7. Monroe, K.R., Miller,R.& Tobis, J.(2007) Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues. Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues
8. National Right to Live.( 2005). Human Cloning Legislation in Congress: Misconceptions and Realities. Retrieved August 21, 2008 from http://www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/CloningMisconceptions.html
9. Turner, R.C.(1997) Human Cloning: Religious Responses. Human Cloning: Religious Responses