Robert Xu, Class of 2023
In 1993, there were around 23,000 individuals on the US national transplant list, and only 7,000 donors, almost a 3:1 ratio. Less than 20 years later, the number of people requesting a transplant has almost quintupled, to a staggering 110,000 people, with only 16,000 donors (HRSA 2019) . Scientists project that unless we find an alternative, the number of people unable to get the transplants they need will only continue to grow. An article from the National Center for Biotechnology Information states that they “estimate that the [demand for human organs], over the next 2-3 decades, will grow dramatically” (Platt and Cascalho 2013). A possible solution they postulated as early as 2002 was the use of clones for the purpose of organ transplants, but at the time cloning techniques were not mature enough to make it seem viable. However, over time technology has continued to improve, to the point where it no longer seems like a pipe dream and indeed the consequences of organ cloning have to be considered in far greater detail. Some of the cloning methods most mentioned are cloning an entire human, cloning a human with no brain function, and cloning the individual organs.
Cloning the transplantee, and harvesting the clones organs is perhaps already possible. As early as 1996, animal cloning was achieved with Dolly the sheep, and since then other animals such as cats and donkeys have been cloned and raised to adulthood successfully (ARI, 2014). However, human cloning produces an entirely different and far graver ethical dilemma, even more so for organ harvesting (Hilmert 2002). All attempts at human cloning have been shut down and the clones destroyed long before they reached the fetus stage, and many national and international debates have been raised about human cloning. The general consensus is that human cloning for organs in any way is a serious ethical violation, and should never be done. Even if human cloning was ever allowed, clones are humans in every way and their organs belong to themselves (OHRSP 1979). Additionally, in order to harvest their organs, you would have to murder them.
Another potential solution scientists have proposed is cloning an individual, but altering gene expression so as to have no brain and just the vital organs. They argue that, according to the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, which specifies that donors must be dead before organ harvesting (Hilmert 2002). Because these clones would have no brain, they could be considered either dead or a “non-person”, since they would have no consciousness. So the use of their organs would violate no moral codes, equivalent to the killing of animals for meat. But dissenters argue that these clones are more similar to people in a vegetative state, or an infant with anencephaly (a baby born missing major parts of its brain); in both cases, organ harvesting was deemed in court to be unacceptable on an ethical and legal basis, since they are still considered alive, and a person with their own identity (Sawicki 2013).
The most ethically accepted idea is the cloning of individual organs for the use of organ transplants. From an identity perspective, there is very little dissent against an organ as not having an identity or personhood (excluding the brain) (Hilmert 2002). There is very little controversy surrounding the cloning of organs for use in transplants, and indeed most major issues involve lack of technology or knowledge into how to successfully implement it.
Human cloning draws worrying questions about what it means to be human, and what it means to have an identity. When is harvesting organs “murder”, and when is it acceptable? Full human cloning especially seems to be so ethically unsound as to be impossible to accept, but at the level of human cells, tissues or organs, it is much more acceptable, leading to worries that things we deem unethical now, may not seem so later. And especially as the organ shortage grows larger, when will we decide our mortality outweigh our morality? But this is only from an ethics point of view. The advantages of cloning for transplants are also plentiful and it offers benefits not just for transplants, but for research and drug testing. But even so, the ethical implications of human cloning at any level make it important to examine their dangers.
References
ARI (AnimalResearch.Info) 2014. Cloning Dolly the Sheep. ari.info. [accessed 2020 Feb 20]. http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-advances/timeline/cloning-dolly-the-sheep/
Ethics of Organ Transplantation. 2004 Feb. [accessed 2020 Feb 20]. https://www.ahc.umn.edu/img/assets/26104/Organ_Transplantation.pdf
HRSA (Health Resources & Services Administration). 2019 Dec 18. Organ Donation Statistics. [accessed 2020 Feb 20]. https://www.organdonor.gov/statistics-stories/statistics.html
Hilmert LJ. 2002. Cloning Human Organs: Potential Sources and Property Implications. Indiana Law Journal. [accessed 2020 Feb 20]. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1893&context=ilj
OHRSP (Office for Human Research Protections). 2016 Mar 15. The Belmont Report. HHS.gov. [accessed 2020 Mar 1]. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
Platt JL, Cascalho M. 2013 Apr. New and old technologies for organ replacement. Current opinion in organ transplantation. [accessed 2020 Feb 20]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4911019/
Santa Clara University. The Ethics of Human Cloning and Stem Cell Research. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. [accessed 2020 Feb 20]. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/bioethics/resources/the-ethics-of-human-cloning-and-stem-cell-research/
Sawicki, Nadia N. 2013 In re TACP (Fla. 1992). [accessed 2020 Feb 20]. https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/8846
Cloning the transplantee, and harvesting the clones organs is perhaps already possible. As early as 1996, animal cloning was achieved with Dolly the sheep, and since then other animals such as cats and donkeys have been cloned and raised to adulthood successfully (ARI, 2014). However, human cloning produces an entirely different and far graver ethical dilemma, even more so for organ harvesting (Hilmert 2002). All attempts at human cloning have been shut down and the clones destroyed long before they reached the fetus stage, and many national and international debates have been raised about human cloning. The general consensus is that human cloning for organs in any way is a serious ethical violation, and should never be done. Even if human cloning was ever allowed, clones are humans in every way and their organs belong to themselves (OHRSP 1979). Additionally, in order to harvest their organs, you would have to murder them.
Another potential solution scientists have proposed is cloning an individual, but altering gene expression so as to have no brain and just the vital organs. They argue that, according to the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, which specifies that donors must be dead before organ harvesting (Hilmert 2002). Because these clones would have no brain, they could be considered either dead or a “non-person”, since they would have no consciousness. So the use of their organs would violate no moral codes, equivalent to the killing of animals for meat. But dissenters argue that these clones are more similar to people in a vegetative state, or an infant with anencephaly (a baby born missing major parts of its brain); in both cases, organ harvesting was deemed in court to be unacceptable on an ethical and legal basis, since they are still considered alive, and a person with their own identity (Sawicki 2013).
The most ethically accepted idea is the cloning of individual organs for the use of organ transplants. From an identity perspective, there is very little dissent against an organ as not having an identity or personhood (excluding the brain) (Hilmert 2002). There is very little controversy surrounding the cloning of organs for use in transplants, and indeed most major issues involve lack of technology or knowledge into how to successfully implement it.
Human cloning draws worrying questions about what it means to be human, and what it means to have an identity. When is harvesting organs “murder”, and when is it acceptable? Full human cloning especially seems to be so ethically unsound as to be impossible to accept, but at the level of human cells, tissues or organs, it is much more acceptable, leading to worries that things we deem unethical now, may not seem so later. And especially as the organ shortage grows larger, when will we decide our mortality outweigh our morality? But this is only from an ethics point of view. The advantages of cloning for transplants are also plentiful and it offers benefits not just for transplants, but for research and drug testing. But even so, the ethical implications of human cloning at any level make it important to examine their dangers.
References
ARI (AnimalResearch.Info) 2014. Cloning Dolly the Sheep. ari.info. [accessed 2020 Feb 20]. http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-advances/timeline/cloning-dolly-the-sheep/
Ethics of Organ Transplantation. 2004 Feb. [accessed 2020 Feb 20]. https://www.ahc.umn.edu/img/assets/26104/Organ_Transplantation.pdf
HRSA (Health Resources & Services Administration). 2019 Dec 18. Organ Donation Statistics. [accessed 2020 Feb 20]. https://www.organdonor.gov/statistics-stories/statistics.html
Hilmert LJ. 2002. Cloning Human Organs: Potential Sources and Property Implications. Indiana Law Journal. [accessed 2020 Feb 20]. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1893&context=ilj
OHRSP (Office for Human Research Protections). 2016 Mar 15. The Belmont Report. HHS.gov. [accessed 2020 Mar 1]. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
Platt JL, Cascalho M. 2013 Apr. New and old technologies for organ replacement. Current opinion in organ transplantation. [accessed 2020 Feb 20]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4911019/
Santa Clara University. The Ethics of Human Cloning and Stem Cell Research. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. [accessed 2020 Feb 20]. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/bioethics/resources/the-ethics-of-human-cloning-and-stem-cell-research/
Sawicki, Nadia N. 2013 In re TACP (Fla. 1992). [accessed 2020 Feb 20]. https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/8846
Proudly powered by Weebly