From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Tue Oct 19 1999 - 09:26:55 MDT
BMA opens door on human reproductive cloning
Richard Woodman , London
Public opposition to human reproductive cloning may be based on nothing more
than an "illogical and transient fear of new technology," according to a
British Medical Association discussion paper.
The paper, which is being presented at this week's World Medical Association
meeting in Tel Aviv, assumes that the potential hazards of cloning by cell
nuclear replacement, the method used to clone Dolly the sheep will
eventually be overcome.
This method involves the implantation of a donor nucleus into a host egg
which has had its original nucleus removed. The cloned embryo ends up with
nuclear DNA that is identical to that of the donor.
Public hostility to human reproductive cloning may be based on an 'illogical
and transient fear of a new technology', according to a British Medical
Association (BMA) discussion paper presented at this week's World Medical
Association meeting in Tel Aviv. If the cloning method of cell nucleus
replacement were eventually to become safe, the BMA paper argues that there
would no longer be any compelling arguments against the use of the technique
for reproductive purposes. There is currently a widespread international
moratorium on human reproductive cloning.
In answer to a widely expressed reservation about the possible
motivations of parents who use this method to have children, the paper asks:
'Do people always have children for the sake of the child itself? In
reality, the reason why most people have children is more to do with their
own wishes and desires than the child's'. The paper adds that a preferable
method of cloning would be embryo splitting. Clones produced by this method
would then share both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, could be born like
twins into the same environment and would avoid having a confused genetic
heritage.
- British Medical Journal 16/10/99 'BMA opens door on human reproductive
cloning'
- British Medical Journal:
The BMA paper goes on to ask whether there will be any compelling argument
against human cloning by this method once the safety problems are resolved.
At present, there is a widespread international moratorium on human cloning.
It points out that some people oppose cloning because they are worried about
the ethical questions that arise if it were used for certain purposes. Some
individuals have expressed reservations, for example, about the idea that a
parent with a sick child might wish to produce a clone of the child, so that
he or she could use the cloned child's bone marrow, stem cells, or other
organs to save the life of the existing child.
But it asks whether that would be any more unethical than many of the other
reasons for which parents have children. "Do people always have children for
the sake of the child itself? In reality, the reason why most people have
children is more to do with their own wishes and desires than the child's."
It adds: "If the child were to be abandoned once the donation had taken
place, he or she would have been treated merely as a means, and this would
be rightly condemned, but the child will undoubtedly be loved and respected
for him or herself and, perhaps even more so for having saved the life or
his or her sibling."
The paper suggests that people's motives for wanting a clone could be
critical, as the risk-benefit ratio would be more acceptable if people were
aiming to save life rather than simply wanting a child in their own image.
It adds that many of the psychological harms predicted for children who
resulted from cloning by cell nuclear replacement would not arise if good
quality embryos were cloned by another method, embryo splitting. Clones
produced by this method would then share both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA,
could be born like twins into the same environment, and would not have a
confused genetic heritage, as the woman who carried them would be their
mother and not their sister.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:33 MST