Customer Reviews

Human Cloning and Human Dignity: The Report of the President's Council On Bioethics

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is the result of a special inquiry ordered by US President Bush to examine these contentious issues. Late in 2001 he announced the formation of a bioethics council to weigh into the many related issues involved in the cloning debate. Chaired by bioethicist Leon Kass of the University of Chicago, a panel of experts was quickly convened, and after 6 months of research and reflection, this final report was presented to the President in July 2002.

This 350-page book presents the findings of the Council. The Council was comprised of 18 experts in science, medicine, public policy and ethics. Some were secular, some religious. Some were fully against any form of human cloning - even for research purposes - while others were much more open to therapeutic research involving embryos, whether deliberately created for that purpose, or "surplus" from assisted reproduction programs. The majority however seem quite concerned about all types of human cloning.

The report begins with an overview of the debate, including scientific, historical and ethical components. Terminology is also clearly defined. Then the pros and cons of the ethics of reproductive cloning are examined in detailed. Similarly, the ethics of therapeutic cloning, both for and against, are closely discussed.

The book concludes with public policy options and recommendations. Finally, thirteen Council members contribute personal statements on the proceedings. These include William Hurlbut, Charles Krauthammer, Gilbert Meilaender and William May. In these statements the various authors are allowed to express personal preferences, disagreements, or endorsements of the Council report. Many of these alone are worth the price of the book.

But as I mentioned, the great majority of Council members seem to have a strong ethical basis on which they make their pronouncements. Thus the report, while allowing various sides to be heard, often gives room for extensive moral reasoning and reflection.

For example, in the discussion on cloning for research, the Council acknowledges that we should not ignore the needs of the suffering, but even this must be kept in balance: "the relief of suffering, though a great good, is not the greatest good". It continues, "As highly as we value health and longer life, we know that life itself loses its value if we care only for how long we live, and not also for how we live."

On the issue of the moral status of the human embryo, again, differing points of view are expressed. But it does deserve special respect, and should not be treated as a means to another's end. It is more than a clump of cells, and it clearly is the means by which all of us began. The report recommends that all embryo research be subject to a new and thorough review and be part of a larger regulatory scheme.

Because this report is a collection of viewpoints, and an assemblage of differing options and proposals, it cannot come out with clear-cut and definite conclusions. But the overall direction and tone of the report is one of balance, prudence and caution. It realises the limitations of science and medicine, and recognises the importance of a comprehensive ethical underpinning of any discussion on the issue. It thus makes for an important contribution to the overall debate.

I found this report to be invaluable in determining where some in the scientific community and many politicians and bureacrats stand on the subject of cloning and stem cell research.

If you favor such research, for whatever reason, whether it be the development of tissues for the cures of disease or for other reasons, the Human Cloning and Human Dignity report will definitely give you an idea regarding the ideology of those who composed the report. The position of many of the members is common and frequently theological in nature, with much of the discussion concerning the subject of the earliest cell divisions, before recognizable human features have developed.

The position against human cloning in the report is recognizable, honest, and thorough so someone hoping to change public opinion in favor of cloning and stem cell research can determine what they need to do to address public opinion on the subject.

I found the report very informative.

There is a great deal of information provided in this report on the subject of human cloning. There is also a fundamental argument at the heart of the discussion concerning whether human cloning is advisable or not. I tend to agree with the line of thinking of the Chairman of the Comission Leon Kass, who basically argues that human cloning is incommensurate with human dignity, and the future benefit of mankind.
At the heart of such a perception is a belief that limitation is wisely built into the human situation. And that an opening up of 'reproduction' in this way will ultimately undermine our common humanity.
'Cloning' would probably lead to a promotion of a false hope of immortality on the part of those who could afford to have themselves have themselves cloned many times. It will lead to an undermining of our whole sense of family life, and human relations.

The subject of human cloning has gained considerable press recently, due mainly to claims made by various individuals in successfully producing a human clone. These claims have remained unjustified, due to the refusal of these individuals to permit their scientific verification. The successful birth of a healthy human clone would be a major achievement, both from a scientific standpoint, and from an ethical one. It would give humans yet another option of how they are to reproduce themselves, and far from demeaning or devaluing human life, would actually celebrate it. There is no question that the first human clones will be viewed as somewhat of a novelty by many, but like all other humans born as the result of advances in technology, such as in vitro fertilization, they will be accepted as another unique and valuable addition to the human species, deserving of every legal right and every measure of respect.

Having unique fingerprints does not distinguish us as individuals, only our achievements do. It is the total contributions we have made in the entire span of our lives that distinguishes us as individuals. But Leon Kass, the main author of this book, and the chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, has chosen the fingerprint as its focal point. Indeed, in the first sentence in the forward, he states that "the fingerprint has rich biological and moral significance", and that it "signifies our unique personal identity." It is ironic perhaps that he has chosen to address the issue of human cloning by beginning with a purely physical characterization of human individuality. Why worry about how different we are from others anyway? If a handful of clones, all with the same fingerprints, make brilliant contributions to humanity, should we not celebrate this? And if a physical attribute is needed to differentiate us as individuals, then should not human clones be regarded as unique by reference to the way they came into this world, i.e. by asexual reproduction?

The main virtue of this book is that it omits the vituperation that frequently accompanies discussion of genetic engineering and human cloning. It addresses the main issues calmly, without hype and without personal attacks against those who advocate the genetic engineering of or cloning of human beings. It does however present a very narrow view of the ethical philosophy behind the technology of genetic engineering. The authors cannot seem to find a sound ethical framework in which to speak. Utilitarian considerations behind reproductive cloning for example are abandoned, and are to be replaced with a "different frame of reference". The Council Members (interesting use of capital letters here) though never articulate in detail just what this ethical "frame of reference" is, but only seek a "deeper meaning" in that act of human procreation, which in their view will then give meaning to the raising of children.

The reproductive cloning of humans has, interestingly, a certain shock value for the council members (no caps are needed). It, to them, is the "most unusual, consequential, and most morally important" of the ways of bringing children into the world. Why indeed is this so? If the council members were suddenly to find several children in the world that were brought into the world as a result of cloning, would they find these children that much different than any other children born as the result of "ordinary" reproduction? The actions taken to produce cloned children are certainly different than taken to produce "ordinary" children, but will the children themselves be any different in terms of their humanity? Cloned children will play in the sand box, get into fights with each other, face the same struggles, and require the same kind of nurturing as any other children. The moral significance of the actions taken to voluntarily produce children shrink in comparison to their value as humans.

It is perhaps ironic that the council members believe that sexual procreation gives each human being a "sense of individual identity". They inadvertently express a belief that genetic structure is primarily responsible for making humans unique as individuals. Genes and not life experiences and the accumulated wisdom obtained from these experiences are believed by the council members to have great weight in determining our uniqueness as individuals. They don't believe in total genetic determinism though, as further analysis of the book reveals, but their emphasis on the genetic makeup is actually quite surprising given their anti-cloning stance. It is usually the technophilic pro-cloning groups who over-emphasize the role of genetics. One can safely bet though that both the council members and these groups would forget their differences if they saw a lovely cloned human child in a crib, one that is deserving of all the warmth and care that should be given to any other human on this planet.

Stem cell research has complicated the cloning debate, and with the announcement last month of promising work involving pluripotent human embryonic stem cell cells derived from a cloned blastocyst, and with the reorganization of the President's Council of Bioethics to make it more anti-cloning and anti-stem cell in its beliefs, one can certainly expect much more contention in the near future. Scientists, geneticists, and genetic engineers must make sure their work and its ethical justification are not left to the sometimes myopic and unjustified opinions such as can be found in this book. The members of the Council of Bioethics do not speak for everyone, and any authority regarding scientific or ethical matters imputed to them is incorrect. Any advice they give is purely their own personal opinion, a result of their own biases and personal history. As such it does not have moral or legal binding for anyone.

I am a science major and philosophy minor and I have found this book very provocative, well written and useful.

This document is the first (and currently only) report of President Bush's 17-member Council on Bioethics. The issue is whether it is in society's best interest to continue research to develop perfectly transplant-tolerant tissues by exploiting the capability of stem cells to differentiate into cells of any tissue type. This includes liquid "tissue" such as blood and lymph cells, which hold promise for curing leukemias and lymphomas.

The members of the Council, all political appointees, split 10 to 7 against cloning for the purposes of research toward cures of disease. Not surprisingly, those members currently working as doctors or scientists tended to favor further research, including the development of new stem cell lines, as will ultimately be necessary for transplant tolerance, should research lead to new cures.

For some, the ethical problem arises because stem cells require the production of an egg, which, in principle, has the potential to become an adult human being. However, the 10 members making up the opposing majority tended to favor what some have called "slippery slope thinking." They worry about where man's efforts to play God will ultimately lead. In the report they draw an analogy between their doubts about continuing stem cell research using newly cloned cells, and drinking from a glass of wine whose rich color might conceal a spider.

The Council's Chairman states that the report fairly reflects the diverse views expressed by council members, for and against, during 6 months of inquiry, and I have no reason to quarrel with that assessment. However, I do not find the opposition of these two different world views -- which is essentially a difference between optimism and pessimism with respect to man's ability to control the worst impulses of those empowered by scientific success -- to constitute a particularly enlightening debate. To me, it evades the real question of whether the greater immorality is to deny the potential of the human life of a developing egg, or to deny the potential of a cure for a deadly disease.

Leon R. Kass, M.D., P.h.D., is chairman of the 'President' George W. Bush's Council on Bioethics. This book was intelligently written without any reference to religion but the whole underlying message was "Do not touch Gods property even if it means healing the sick." These religious fundamentalists will do anything to STUNT us in our pursuits of happiness. This guy is for KEEPING PARALYZED PEOPLE PARALYZED. "Dr." Kass is for KEEPING AMPUTEES AMPUTATED. He's for KEEPING the depressed and suicidal DEPRESSED AND SUICIDAL. Ill spare you the bull and say what Dr. Kass really wants to say - "I want you to follow Jesus with all your heart no matter how much pain and suffering you are in. If God made you depressed than thats how you should be. If God made you paralyzed then thats how you should be. If you are miserable in your existance then thats obviously how God wants you to be and thats how you will be with our new conservative laws that will effectively ban progress to help people". For this is the ONLY real argument you can use to support the banning of progress designed to help humans. - He wants everyone to follow the 'divine' rule of sanctity of life, not quality of life - an ugly ethic for a very stupid man.