If a couple had a baby who died and could not have any more babies, but had the opportunity to clone their baby, should they be allowed to clone it?
This question raises many, very deep questions that would be almost impossible to answer within this essay. It raises both ethical and legal issues, some of which are very controversial. That being said, in my opinion, if a couple has a baby who dies at any point, from a purely technical standpoint, should be allowed to clone it.
To begin with, does a couple have the legal rights to their genetic material? This question can be answered by looking at somewhat similar procedures that take place in our current society. When couples go through the process of modern procedures like in-vitro fertilization, they have the rights to their own frozen embryos. This sets a precedent for future procedures that face a similar issue, such as the cloning of a deceased child. But that only works for embryos and newborns. If the child is born, and lives for a few years before dying, would their unique genetic code be considered their property, and therefore, not technically available to be used by the parents to clone the deceased child? Would the child have to give consent before death? In my opinion, if the child is too young to understand what being cloned means, and they are still immature, the responsibility of determining what happens to their genetic material if they die should lie with the parents. After all, parents in today’s society control pretty much everything involving a child’s health, including whether or not they receive medical care, get vaccinated, or go to the doctor. Should their genetics be treated any differently?
If the parents did decide to clone a child who had been alive for a significant amount of time before, would they simply be treated as the original person once they grew up? If the clone knew that they were in fact a copy of someone who had lived before them, they may feel alienated, or like a replacement. A similar phenomenon occurs in children who are adopted who, once they find out, feel different or separated, especially if they have siblings that are biological children of the parents. Therefore, I believe that if a couple does make the decision to clone their deceased child, the clone should not be informed that he or she is a clone until he/she is ready.
As with most things involving tampering with genetics, this would raise several ethical and moral issues. For example, the cloning of a child that died at birth or as a newborn would almost certainly be viewed differently from the cloning of a deceased teenager or even adult. Another ethical issue that would be faced by the parents would be if the child died due to abuse or neglect by the parents, would the parents be allowed to try again? The first issue regarding the age of the potential cloned person at the time of death is probably the most difficult to answer. Personally, I would only have this procedure done if the child was stillborn or miscarried. However, it is completely up to the parents as to if they should clone their child or not. Another, simpler question to answer is whether a child who died due to abuse or neglect by the parents. To me, if the parents are deemed unfit to care for the child, they should not be allowed to clone him/her unless they can guarantee that the child is placed under the protection of another responsible legal guardian, such as a grandparent or other trustworthy family member.
In conclusion, the idea of cloning a child who died because a couple could not have more children raises many ethical and moral questions. However, in my opinion, the procedure should be allowed if the safety and well-being of the child is insured.
No comments:
Post a Comment