 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kathryn Jean Lopez: What's the most important contribution the bioethics council's report on cloning makes to the whole cloning debate? Robert P. George: First, the report calls for a prohibition of so-called "research cloning" for four years. If adopted by Congress, this moratorium would prevent the creation of cloned embryos to be destroyed in biomedical experimentation for a substantial period of time while we work to make the ban permanent. During that time, advances made possible by ethically sound biomedical research could quite possibly eliminate much of the appeal of creating human embryos (whether by cloning or other means) for purposes of destructive experimentation. Second, the report
dismisses the euphemisms and evasions on which the case for "research
cloning" is built. For example, proponents of the creation of human
embryos by somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) for purposes of research
sometimes claim that SCNT is not cloning. Rather, they define "cloning"
as the implantation of an embryo brought into being by SCNT into
the prepared uterus of a woman (or into an artificial womb). This is a
gross deception. (It is a deception that is, by the way, actually written
into legislation introduced by Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, Specter, and
others that fraudulently claims to ban cloning.) SCNT is a method of cloning;
and the report treats it as such. Even more egregiously, some advocates
of destructive embryo research have claimed that a human embryo produced
by cloning is not human or not an embryo. They say that it is an "artifact."
The report demolishes this falsehood. The human embryo — whether
produced by the union of sperm and egg or by SCNT or other cloning processes
— is an embryonic human being. George:
Like six of my colleagues, I would have preferred a report that recommended
a permanent ban on all cloning. The four-year moratorium is certainly
superior to no prohibition on research cloning, but even better would
have been a call for a permanent ban on the creation of embryos —
by cloning or otherwise — to be exploited and destroyed in scientific
research. In
my statement appended to the report (which was joined by Professor
Alfonso Gomez-Lobo of Georgetown), I make the case for a permanent ban
and criticize the leading arguments that were advanced against it by members
of the council who wish to proceed with cloning for biomedical research.
There are also powerful anti-cloning statements by Gilbert Meilaender,
William Hurlbut, and Charles Krauthammer. All of us understand and share
the desire to relieve suffering, conquer disease, and increase the sum
of human knowledge; but I don't think the pro-cloning forces have a leg
to stand on — scientifically or philosophically — in denying
that human embryos are human beings and, as such, worthy of a measure
of respect that is simply incompatible with treating them as disposable
"research material." If Congress enacts the proposed four-year
moratorium, we will during that time have a national debate about the
moral status of human beings in the embryonic stage of development. That
is a debate I welcome. George:
Seven of us favored a permanent ban; seven others wanted no ban at all;
three favored a four-year moratorium. The seven who wanted a permanent
ban were willing to settle for recommending the moratorium in preference
to no prohibition. Of course, different members of the council supported
the moratorium recommendation for different reasons. One could say that
our recommendation rests on an "overlapping consensus" among
some people who oppose the cloning of embryos for destructive research
under any circumstances, and others who believe that such cloning could
be justified, but who hold that the case for it in the current circumstances
has not been made. George: The report was meant to be a report on cloning — not on every morally problematic issue of biotechnology. Considered as a report on cloning, it is reasonably comprehensive. The trouble is that the issue of "research cloning" cannot be addressed apart from the question of the moral status of the embryo. If human embryos are human beings in the embryonic stage of their natural development — and that is exactly they are — then what could justify treating embryonic human beings as objects to be exploited and destroyed for the benefit of others? We do not countenance the exploitation of human beings on the basis of race, or sex, or ethnicity. Why should we deny human rights on the basis of age, size, stage of development, or condition of dependency? The report does not go deeply into these issues, but they really do need to be addressed. There is, in the end, no avoiding them. Lopez: Can the council report ultimately be considered a victory for the anti-cloning forces? Doesn't it just mean we have to re-debate the issue four years from now when the "promises" of cloning will be "closer"? Goerge: The
report is a victory, though our council fell short of endorsing President
Bush's call for a permanent ban on all cloning at this point. I agree
with Richard Doerflinger of the Pro-Life Office of the U.S. Conference
of Catholic Bishops who says that it is remarkable that a body as diverse
as ours could agree on a four-year moratorium. Four years is a long time
in the field of biotechnology. Far from grinding to a halt, science will
march on. As I said earlier, it is possible that researchers will find
— indeed they are already finding — ethically legitimate ways
to accomplish the goals that pro-cloning people said could only be achieved
by destructive research on cloned embryos. One of the saddest things about
this whole debate is the way that the pro-cloning lobby led many suffering
people to believe that cloning, and cloning alone, holds promise of cures
for the horrible diseases that afflict them. They hyped the promise of
cloning while obscuring or denying the value of adult-stem-cell research,
for example. Before any embryos were cloned and killed, truth was the
first casualty. George: Charles Krauthammer warns that if we cross the "moral boundary" into cloning embryos for research, "we will live to regret it." Embryonic human beings will be routinely created, openly bought and sold, and freely destroyed. When promising lines of research emerge requiring the use of more fully developed human beings, embryos will be gestated to permit the extraction of body parts from more mature embryos and fetuses. People who today swear that they would never support research on embryos beyond the blastocyst stage (five to six days) will find themselves saying — rightly — that such limits are "arbitary." Then they will call for them to be laid aside in view of the promise of research using more fully developed embryos and then fetuses. The appalling concept of "fetal farming" will lose its power to shock as the commodification of life leads us further into the abyss of the "culture of death." The only non-arbitrary principle is the one that says human beings — irrespective of age, size, stage of development, or condition of dependency — may never be exploited and destroyed in research to benefit others. This principle recognizes the great truth that human life is intrinsically, and not merely instrumentally, valuable. It understands that human dignity is inherent, and thus it makes sense of the great principle of human equality upon which our nation was founded. It is our fidelity to this principle that is ultimately at stake in the debate over cloning.
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
