Consider the Word “Harm”

In 1971 geneticist James D. Watson – best known for his research on the structure of DNA – considered the potentially troubling implications of human cloning. He predicted, at the time, that if matters proceeded “in its current nondirected fashion” a human being born of clonal reproduction most likely would occur within the next twenty to fifty years…our time now. With his foresight he knew it was more that just a great possibility but the reality (as we are now seeing it come to fruition). But did he – and others – consider that if we were to proceed so nondirectionally what the affects to the children being brought into such families would be?

I take my argument for and against human cloning to what we consider safe, moral and ethical. We should ask ourselves whether cloning would serve important reproductive and familial needs, and if so, what the impact of allowing cloning in these cases would be. The concern should be in the best interests of the child because even if physical abnormalities are overcome there could be psychological “harms” associated with such cloning. Couldn’t also such harm to humans be identified as negligent parents, knowing of genetic diseases present in the genome passing them on to future generations be considered immoral? As I stated at the beginning of my line of inquiry, the aftermath is as important as the initial consideration to conceive in the first place. I also mention earlier that reproductive cloning only becomes unethical when using human lives is an experimental process.

When we attempt to draw the line between what should be allowed and what shouldn’t we create big waves in the debate. Therefore, do we oppose all human cloning because of its potential for grotesque misuse? It really is a moral and ethical issue that most people, I would hope, would delegate their judgments based on careful consideration of what the experts in the field report – on both sides. To make sound judgments for ourselves on the basis of personal philosophy (which may or may not have a religious underpinning) or of the ‘gut feeling’ that results from this, we have to turn toward the research in the field.

There is a fantastic article, Harming by Conceiving: A Review of Misconceptions and a New Analysis, on the harm vs. no harm argument by Carson Strong published in the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy (volume 30: 491–516, 2005). (Unfortunately, I couldn’t link the article because it is within a password protected database). If you are able, do have a look. Many issues I talk about here are explained there in great detail especially on the debate of existence vs. non-existence and knowingly creating children with significant handicaps as opposed to the alternative of never being conceived in the first place. That is a serious debate worthy of an entirely new line of inquiry perhaps in a forthcoming post(s) – or not!