Should We Clone Human Beings? Cloning as a Source of Tissue for Transplantation
Author(s): Julian Savulescu
Source: Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 87-95
Published by: BMJ
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27718262 .
Accessed: 18/04/2014 10:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp .
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
BMJ is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Medical Ethics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 192.175.16.2 on Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:40:41 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal ofMedical Ethics 1999;25:87-95
we
Should a source
of
human
tissue
The Murdoch
Savulescu
Julian
clone
for
Institute,
at all, is to provide or tissues for medical use, Some have argued transplantation. especially this raises
4.
cells
no new
issues
ethical
those
above
or fetuses
to produce
raised
cloning
the sake
embryos for cells, tissues or even organs for therapy, or fetus. by abortion of the embryo
followed
ofMedical
(Journal
Keywords:
onic stem
Ethics
Cloning; cells; fetal
It uses
5.
that by I argue that any form of embryo1 experimentation. this research is less morally than other problematic research. it is not merely
Indeed,
embryo morally but morally that we employ permissible required
providing
a person's to genetic individu right cannot that twins is?identical
(whatever
ality a right). have such
It allows selection. eugenic
It violates
is one
if there
self-compatible
Australia
Melbourne,
Hospital,
3.
Abstract
The most publicly justifiable application of human cloning, as
Cloning
transplantation
Children's
Royal
beings?
6.
as a means. people are worse in off
Clones
especially psychological
terms
of wellbeing,
wellbeing.
are
7. There
concerns, safety of serious genetic shortened lifespan. cancer
or
an
especially
risk
increased
malformation,
of
There
are,
favour
of
a number
however, human of
reproductive
in
arguments
These
cloning.
include:
1999;25:87-95)
autonomy; transplantation; tissue; embryo experimentation; embry abor 1. General
2.
tion; potential
justifications. make personal
liberty to Freedom
reproductive
choices.
Introduction
When news broke in 1997 that IanWilmut had colleagues there was sional an
and
wave fear bureaucratic
new
Almost
technique. condemned.2"6 ing was have Spain legislation Sweden
Slovakia, implicitly and
two bills before comprehensively ban implicit and
Human
issues
universally,
cloning; have Some
indicated
that
research
into
on
for
in
is no
and
Norway,
the
use
or
explicit
against
1.
2.
be possible
human
It is liable
It
violates
autonomy,
several
reproductive
arguments
a
given
right etc. to
without
9.
immortality. or (with
cloning
a
loved
gene
important
(with
or without
dead
relative
gene or (with
gene
"Insurance"
therapy/enhancement). a split freeze in case embryo to the first: as a source of happens
something or as replacement tissue 10. Source of human cells 11.
without
socially
infertility
therapy/enhancement). of Replacement
12.
The
cally them Research
stem
into an for or the first. tissue. cell
to
differentiation of understanding
to prevent
Cloning
individuality,
arguments examined here.1011
in favour favour cloning:
person's
of
enquiry. of and
aging
a genetic
disease.
is
to abuse.
selfhood,
people.
7. Treatment
scientific
oncogenesis.
for
in England.7
been
6.
has
This
have