From: Damien Broderick (thespike@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Dec 29 2002 - 17:48:04 MST
I'm told there's trouble with the url I posted. What the hell, here's the
full text.
Russell Blackford: There's madness in the Raelians' method
30dec02
I'M as troubled as most people by recent claims that the Raelian cult has
cloned the world's first human baby, but I'm at least as horrified by the
responses. Most, alas, have simply expressed scepticism about the claim or
have made high-sounding metaphysical pronouncements of a kind that usually
mask the absence of a rational argument.
So how should we view the prospect of human cloning in a modern liberal
society such as Australia? Many of the discussions seem to assume that we
should adopt a moral code based on religious ideas of natural law, and that
it is legitimate to ban conduct such as cloning simply because some people
find it morally objectionable, irrespective of the harm it might cause.
In a society such as ours, pluralism prevails in matters of personal
morality. On the face of things, the infliction or threat of force by the
state is considered wrong, especially so when very personal interests are at
stake, as with choices about sexual relationships and family formation.
What John Stuart Mill referred to as "experiments in living" should not
merely be tolerated in such a society, but should actually be welcomed.
So it might have been expected that countries such as Australia could
tolerate or even welcome the prospect of reproduction by nuclear somatic
transfer (or NST, the "cloning" technique involved). NST could be both a
legitimate "experiment in living" and a response to some cases of male
infertility – and the understandable desires of some lesbian couples to have
children biologically related to both of them.
But what makes the Raelians' recent announcement so shocking is that NST is
not a safe method of reproduction. From our experience with animals, there
appears to be a high risk of congenital disability as a result of the
process. We know that these might not be immediately obvious.
Even the most liberal society can't tolerate the use of a method of
reproduction that is so unsafe. After all, it violates a fundamental moral
norm that requires care for our children. And most of us would agree that a
child born with any disability as a result of the reckless use of an unsafe
procedure has been seriously wronged.
Few of the published responses to the Raelians' bizarre claims have made any
mention of the welfare of the allegedly cloned child. This would be a human
baby like any other, and equally deserving of our good wishes and
compassion.
The issue is not merely one of the technique's physical safety. If the
Raelians ever succeed in their misguided quest for cloned offspring, it is
all too easy to imagine the upbringing that awaits such children. Although
it's been announced that the infertile couple involved in this first case
are not Raelians, it's clear that the cult is deeply involved in Clonaid's
research and activities. This is a cult that makes a fetish of cloning as
part of its eccentric world view.
It's easy to imagine the plight of children conceived by NST for parents who
have anything to do with the Raelians, especially if the procedure becomes
relatively commonplace within the cult. As it grew up, any such child would
be given special significance by the cult, and would be confronted with a
regime of expectations and brainwashing that is almost too intolerable to
contemplate.
We would have every reason to worry deeply about its welfare in that sense,
as well as in the sense of its physical health.
If the announcement of a first human child produced by NST is not simply a
hoax, my heart goes out to the child, as it does to any child conceived and
born through the use of NST at this stage of its technological development
and in these extraordinary circumstances.
The story may well be a hoax; I believe and hope it is. But if it's true,
let's hope that the baby is well and will have a decent life ahead of it.
Rather than posturing about it as some kind of metaphysical symbol, we
should be worried about this cloned baby as a human child with a life to
lead. A cloned baby would still be a baby with its own life and personality,
very different from that of the cell donor whose DNA it would replicate,
since we are not merely products of our genes.
No large metaphysical issue is raised merely by the use of a method of
conception that creates generationally separated identical twins. But very
real issues of social tolerance are raised by the prospect of recklessly
creating children with an unsafe technology and, where the Raelians are
involved, with obvious risks to their social welfare.
Russell Blackford is a regular contributor on bioethics to Quadrant.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:56 MST