From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sun Dec 29 2002 - 19:14:00 MST
Sorry, got my wires crossed on the success/failure rates.
Correction below.
> > In A, cloning attempts are permitted only on animals, until
> > such time as 100% of cloning attempts result in perfectly
> > normal animals. Only then will cloning be allowed for
> > humans.
>
> (NB: Natural human reproduction doesn't even approach a
> 100% success rate. Maybe around 20 - 30%.)
>
> Does 100% mean 100.00000etc percent or is less than 1 failure
> in 200 rounded to 100%. acceptable?
>
> >
> > In B, cloning of human beings is also permitted, but abortions
> > of faulty humans are allowed up to the end of the second
> > trimester. While quite a number of people have been successfully
> > cloned, for each success approximately ten abortions take place.
>
> (So by my reckoning cloning has a lower absolute success rate
> in terms of live healthy births.)
>
> >
> > Two questions: (1) which legal structure most closely meets
> > with your approval? (2) which community more closely meets
> > your ethical or moral standards?
>
> More info would certainly help re the 100%. As wanting better
> than 1 success in 200 is different from wanting complete success
> and this factors into other societal considerations like who covers
> the risk, how informed could the consent of the mother be etc.
Sorry - hit the send button too quickly. In A you'd need to be
successful with animal clones more than 200 times for every
failure to claim 100% (rounded up). That would be an extra-
ordinary difficult success rate to achieve as at present the
reported failures are closer to 200 time more numerous than any
"successes".
For the prospective "parent" there is a point at which the risk
becomes potentially reasonable and able to be taken as a matter
of "informed consent" (in comparison even with success of normal
fertilization). And as more do it the risks will presumably get lower.
Similarly if more chose to reproduce by IVF, where the health of the
sperm, the ova and the embryo could each be examined eventually
we could have a situation where IVF is actually safer in terms of
producing less natural abortions and more healthy children than
normal fertilization.
With respect to the prospective child clone, (or indeed any child)
I can't see that it has any "interest" until it has the apparatus
necessary to sustain an interest. A CNS at a minimum.
My operating principle would be that one should not *recklessly*
bring unnecessary suffering into the world. Or encourage others
to reckless do so.
*When* the risk of cloning approaches the risk of natural birth I
think the burden of making any case for a ban should switch to
those who want to curtail the freedom of the woman choosing to
clone herself. Personally I'd think she might find more enlightened
options in most cases, but I wouldn't be sure it would always be
a poor option in all cases. Nor would I be sure that it is my or
anyone else's right to tell her what risks she can run or what poor
judgement she may not exercise *unless* she is hurting someone
else. Then the question will be who is she hurting?
But we are not at that point yet in my view, and I think the case
for banning cloning (on the evidence available) because of the
likelihood that suffering would be recklessly brought into the
world has been well made.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:56 MST