Worries About New Reproductive Technologies

Human Cloning

Sex Selection

"the resulting babies [of a controversial new reproductive technique] have a mixture of DNA from the two women and the father." (Sharon Kirkey, The National Post, May 6, 2001, A1)

 "A furious debate about the morality of artificial insemination has erupted over the case of a 62-year-old Frenchwoman, who revealed yesterday her brother was the biological father of her baby." (The National Post, June 21, 2001, A13)
 

Draft legislation presented to the Standing Committee on Health, May 3, 2001

It prohibits or controls a broad range of forms of assisted reproduction

assisted reproduction procedure = "any controlled activity undertaken for the purpose of facilitating human reproduction"

"3. (1) No person shall knowingly
(a) create or participate in the creation of a human clone ...
(b) alter the genome of a cell of a human being or in vitro embryo such that the alteration is capable of being transmitted to its descendants;
(c) maintain an embryo outside the body of a woman after the fourteenth day of its development ...
(f) transplant a sperm, ovum, embryo or foetus of an animal into a human being;...
(h) perform any procedure ... for the purpose of ensuring ... that an embryo will be of a particular sex..."

" 'surrogate mother' means a female person who carries an embryo or foetus derived from the genes of a donor with the intention of surrendering the child at birth to the donor or another person."

"4. (1)  No person shall pay any consideration to a female person to become a surrogate mother..."

"5. (1) No person shall purchase or offer to purchase sperm or ova from a donor...
(2) No person shall (a) purchase ... or advertise for purchase, an in vitro  embryo or any part of one ..."

IVF

- 'in glass' fertilization
- ova and sperm are collected (from the would-be parents or donors) and combined in a laboratory
- if fertilization occurs, the fertilized eggs are allowed to briefly develop and then either implanted in the would-be mother (or a surrogate) or stored for later attempts

Under the AHR Act, IVF would become a controlled activity, i.e., it may only be done if you have a licence

Licences are to be granted by the Minister of Health

"9. (1) No person shall, except under the authority of a licence ... create a chimera for any purpose including research."

chimera = animal/human hybrid embryo or foetus

E.g., for sperm donation, surrogate motherhood

Only permissible under a licence

For engaging in a prohibited activity:  fines up to $500,000 and sentences up to 10 years

For improperly engaging in a controlled activity: fines up to $250,000 and sentences up to five years

Why pass all these regulations?

A Practical Reason:  Part of the justification given for this law is the need to protect people's health and safety.  Many of these technologies are still developing and so some techniques are not well tested.  Furthermore, even when these techniques are tried and tested, they are generally only safely applied by someone who has been adequately trained in the use of these techniques.

A Moral Reason:  Many of these technologies are viewed as being immoral on the grounds that they threaten human dignity.

Dignity

"Every one of the prohibitions we propose, such as human cloning, is on that list of prohibitions because it's inconsistent with human dignity." (Alan Rock, Minister of Health, Comments before the Standing Committee on Health, May 3, 2001)

The intent of the legislation is "to draw a line in the sand with respect to some practices that are simply unacceptable, because they're not consistent with human dignity, such as cloning a person and creating animal-human hybrids, beings that reflect both animal and human elements. Those are unacceptable, because they're just not consistent with human dignity." (Alan Rock, Minister of Health, Comments before the Standing Committee on Health, May 3, 2001)

From the Preamble to the AHR Act:  "Whereas the parliament of Canada ... recognizes the importance or preserving and protecting ... the integrity of the human genome."

From the AHR Act: "16. (1) The Minister may take, or order any person to take, all reasonable measures  that the minister, on reasonable grounds, considers necessary to prevent, reduce or mitigate ... any harm to human dignity..."

Some strong claims are made above about what is and isn't consistent with human dignity.  We need to consider whether these claims are correct.

A Common Way of Criticizing NRT's

'They're unnatural'

So what?

The underlying assumption is that what's unnatural is therefore immoral.

Two Questions:

1. What does it mean to say something is unnatural?

2. Does unnatural = immoral?  If not, what is the relationship between the unnatural and the immoral?

These questions are important not just for what they might tell us about the moral status of NRT's.  The 'unnatural, therefore immoral' move is a very common one in discussions of all sorts of ethical issues, e.g., in discussions of the moral status of homosexuality.

Four Accounts of Unnaturalness

1.  Unnatural = not found outside human society

Problem:  Clearly, NRT's are unnatural in this sense, but so what?  If this sort of unnaturalness is bad, then radio, TV, churches, etc. are bad.

2.  Unnatural = goes against a thing's proper function

Problems: (i) Does the idea of function make sense except when we're considering designed objects?  (Remember our discussion of the 'valence' of a technology back when we talked about Winston's article.)  This idea of proper function may not even make sense when applied to us (& so to NRT's).

(ii)  What's wrong with going against a thing's proper function?  Is it wrong, for example, to cut up trees to make popsicle sticks out of them?

3. Unnatural = artificial

See #1

4. Unnatural = unusual

Problem:  Clearly. NRT's will be unusual in this sense, at least initially, but so what?  Why does this matter morally?

If not, the 'unnaturalness' objection turns out to be pretty empty.  Nothing is proved by saying a thing is unnatural.  There may still be reasons for objecting to various NRT's, but they won't be based on the mere idea of unnaturalness.

We turn now to the case for and against a couple of specific NRT's: cloning & genetic engineering.

***************************************

Human Cloning

Human cloning is often presented as being clearly morally wrong.

Is this so?

Why do people say cloning is wrong?
 
1. 'It's unnatural.'
 
But we've already seen the emptiness of this claim.  If cloning is to be rejected it must be for a more substantial reason.


2. Worries about the moral staus of clones

 
Some claim that human cloning will involve the creation of a 'new slave class'.
 
See Russo & Cove's discussion of Brave New World. (243)

But "[a]s many scientists have pointed out, a clone would not in fact be an indentical copy, but more like a delayed identical twin. And just as identical twins are two separate people ..., a clone would be a separate person". (Wachbroit, 254)


3. Worries about the motivation of those who want to have themselves cloned
 

Some claim that to want to clone youself is to have a morally bad motivation. It's unacceptably vain. (See Wachbroit, 258)
 
But: (1) Does this again just reflect a misunderstanding about how cloning works?

(2) The reason needn't always be vanity:  what if one member of a couple is a carrier for a serious genetically produced illness?


4. Worries about the risk to the clone

 
Physical:  "This technology has not yet been tested with human subjects, and scientists cannot rule out the possibility of mutation or other biological damage." (Wachbroit, 254)

Psychological:  "a child might be constantly compared to the adult from whom he was cloned." (Wachbroit, 255)

 
"a child might be burdened by the thought that he is a copy". (255)

Wachbroit responds to this by claiming that the psychological harm would simply be the result of "bad parenting". (255)  This is not a problem that is unique to cloned children.


5. Worries about who the parent is

 
"Is the clone an offspring or a sibling?" (256)
 
"policymakers should address any confusion in the social or legal assignment of responsibility resulting from cloning." (256)

******************************************
A Side Issue:  Genetic Information

Another way in which the science of genetics raises ethical issues concerns the use we might make of the information genetics reveals about us.  This isn't exactly an issue concerning NRT's, but it does raise serious ethical questions.  As we acquire better and better knowledge of the significiance of our genetic makeup, it becomes possible to detect predispositions to particular conditions.

Some Issues:

(1) Genetic Privacy - How much do others have a right to know about you?

Does your employer have a right to know if you have a strong tendency to develop some debilitating condition?

What about your health insurance provider? (See Cove & Russo, 246; Shenk, 249)

(2) How much do we want to know about ourselves?

Suppose tests reveal you have a high probability of developing an incurable, fatal disease.  Would you want to know?

(3) Genetic Fatalism -  Even though our genetic makeup often only indicates a tendency to develop certain conditions, is there a danger that the information they reveal will turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Consider the search for the so-called 'criminal gene'. Is there a danger that those who possess the gene will be marginalized and so made more likely to become criminals?

Genetic Engineering

Our improved understanding of genetics promises to make 'designer children' possible, either through selective breeding or actual modification of genes.

The AHR Act effectively bans this practice.

Does it do so for a good moral reason?

1. Thinking of genes as guaranteeing particular traits.

Don't forget the role of environment.

2. Thinking of genes as operating in isolation, e.g., a gene for mathematical ability, a gene for athletic ability and so on.

Genes typically work in combination.

It may help to differentiate between negative genetic engineering (which involves correcting or avoiding 'defects') and positive genetic engineering (which involves making 'improvements').

'Negative' Genetic Engineering

1. Terminating 'Problem' Fetuses

Problem:  Familiar worries about abortion

"Here is a preview of your daughter.  If she's defecitve, will you keep her?" (Shenk, 248)

2. Avoiding Dangerous Genetic Combinations

3. Correcting Defects

Problem:  (i) Defining Defects - blindness, nearsightedeness, less than 20/20 vision, merely normal, homosexuality? (See Shenk, 250)

(ii) Predicting far-reaching effects - e.g., some 'defects' confer advantages in certain combinations

"The elimination of what is, at first sight, unwanted genetic variation, might not always be desirable." (Russo & Cove, 243)

E.g., sickle cell anemia is a disease with a genetic cause, but the same 'faulty' gene can also confer a resistance to malaria

"Thousands of years down the line, the diversity in the human gene pool could be diminished, which any potato farmer will tell you is no way to manage a species." (Shenk, 250)

'Positive' Genetic Engineering

This is an old idea coupled with a new way of pursuing it

"[I]f we are to keep our flock at the highest pitch of excellence, there should be as many unions of the best of both sexes, and as few of the inferior as possible, and ... only the offspring of the better unions should be kept ..." (from Plato's Republic)

Some Possible Objedtions to PGE

(1) 'it's unnatural'

(2) Who will it be available to?

i.e., will it only be available to the rich?

(3) Will it create hierarchies amongst kinds of people?

e.g., Gattaca

(4) It 'commodifies' people.

i.e., it requires us to think of humans as collections of good or bad properties, not as intrinsically valuable individuals

Are these objections compelling reasons for banning PGE?

How about for banning GE in general?

[Philosophy 2801]