Hey! I cloned a kid to save someone else...is that OK?

Hey! I cloned a kid to save someone else...is that OK?

(Note: This is also known as therapeutic cloning)

In the future, other humans may be cloned to save people’s lives. In year 2000, a child, Adam, was borne to give his bone marrow to his "sister", Molly, so that she would not die from a genetic disorder. Adam was the result of vitrofertilising, to ensure that his bone marrow would be useful. Adam grew to be a normal boy, and his sister’s life was saved. This may have been a good thing to the group of pro-cloning people mentioned earlier, but it, among other things, raises questions!

Is it ethical to engineer life to save another life?

Under certain circumstances; yes. If this life was endangered as a result of something that could not be avoided, like a genetic disease or physical harm not of the victim’s intent. The "cloned" child would also have to be able to survive the operations to save the victim, and still lead a normal life. Under these circumstances, I feel it is justifiable to "clone" to save. However, if the victim’s endangerment is the result of his or her own efforts, such as a pity-damage, in which the victim hurt himself/herself to gain the sympathy of someone else, an attempted suicide, or if the resulting child is abnormal or different and not able to lead a full, normal life, then I feel it is wrong.

However, certain people believe that this kind of "saving" is a type of murder, as they believe life starts at birth. Therapeutic cloning is "the ethical equivalent to the Nazi death camps at Belsen or Auschwitz. It is immoral to kill one person in order to save or extend the life of another".

What would Adam think of his own existence?

At this point, it’s pretty much up to Adam’s environment. Since Adam is a healthy, normal child, it depends on how he is told what he is and how he is affected. 2 scenarios:

Adam is told what he is, and how he HELPED save his sister’s LIFE! In addition, he is loved and cared for by his parents like any other child. This would create the impression on him that he wasn’t the result of some freak experiment, but in fact a normal boy, and therefore it was make hi happy.

Adam is told what he is, and how he HELPED save his sister’s LIFE! But aside from that, he isn’t loved or cared for, and the sister he helped save doesn’t even like him. No one acknowledges him as part of the family, and is left out. This would create the impression that he was an abnormal child, useless except for his body parts. Therefore he is sad.

Would Molly be indebted to Adam for life?

Ah, the question of the bond. This can be easily answered, as this has happened many times before, but not in the same circumstance. Each time a person’s life is saved when someone jumps to push them out of the path of a car, or when someone gives blood/bone marrow, the victim would be "indebted", so the speak, to his/her saviour. There would be a bond created between them.

In this case, the bond is, or should be, already present. Between brothers and sisters, there is the relationship of family, and it can only be strengthen through this event. In effect, the sister would have a part of him in her, physically as well as emotionally. It may even become a good joke to share in the family; every time they discuss how the siblings look so alike, they’d have a credible answer, "She DOES have a part of me in her, you know!"

What happens to the other embryos that did not fit the genetic match?

It is most likely that any embryo that does not make the cut is either destroyed, or kept for future genetic tampering, if the need arises. Most people would then ask themselves, "Wouldn’t that be killing many to save 1?" In effect, there are many sides to THAT question.

The religious side

Countless religions have condemned the use of abortion to get rid of unwanted pregnancies. Would this be the same?

Many religions also define the start of life at conception, others at other points of development of the foetus.

Christians believe that all life comes from God, and is therefore sacred. Nothing and no one should be denied the chance to live a God-given life, so any foetus not making the cut should be implanted somewhere else, at least.

The scientific side

Life is defined as "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from earth rock, etc." This could mean that life, as defined in the dictionary, would have started when the foetus started to live on its own, i.e. after birth.

There are people who believe in the saying "I think, therefore I am". This saying would mean that an animate object would have to be able to think and deduce on its on. No foetus can do that.

Still others believe that the foetus is nothing but a bunch of growing cells living off the parent, and therefore should not be considered alive.

Take Dolly for example. Dolly was the first sheep to be cloned successfully. Unfortunately, Dolly was the 278^th trial that succeeded. The first 277 were failures, and many of these failed attempts resulted in very malformed sheep. Had they destroyed those failed attempts, there would be on deformed sheep. The point is: what would be the consequences on the newborn "failed" clone?

It’s alright to say "get rid of it" to a deformed sheep...it could be your next dinner! But what if this happened to a child?

Think about it...

Back |---| Home |---| SubMenu |---| Next