|
Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify today. I believe that phrases
such as “the clone” or “the human clone” are prejudicial, like “chick” or “queer”
and should be avoided. I believe that the
phrase “delayed twin” is much less question-begging.
Mr. Chairman, I have taught and written about
medical ethics for nearly 25 years in the medical school in Birmingham. In the
early 1970’s, all bioethicists except Joseph Fletcher opposed “test tube
babies” for fear of monsters, harm to families, and harm to the identity of the
children created. Many of these same critics today oppose human cloning. Now over 100,000 American babies exist –
200,000 worldwide – who would not have existed had these critics won. Back then,
over 80% of Americans opposed test-tube babies; now the same percent of
Americans support such efforts.
What can we learn from this experience? First,
such babies were not viewed by their parents as the critics predicted, that is,
as “commodities” or as “products.” Instead, and because of the effort and cost that
the parents endure, these children are very, very loved.
To me, the essential moral question is whether
human cloning is intrinsically wrong. But how can a new way of creating a
family be intrinsically wrong? How can a way of avoiding hereditary genetic
disease be intrinsically wrong?
If it is not intrinsically wrong, then we must
ask whether it I wrong for some other, associated reason, mainly, whether a
child created by cloning would be harmed,
psychologically or physically.
I believe that questions of psychological harm here
are entirely speculative and stem from science fiction and pop psychology. I
believe that how children are originated has little to do with their future mental
health. The real requirement for the happiness of children is loving parents.
As for physical danger, I believe that children
should not be originated by cloning until this process is as safe as sexual
reproduction, which now has a roughly 1-2% rate of abnormalities. At the
moment, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is premature to proceed with attempts to
originate humans by cloning, but continuing research and advanced screening
techniques for embryos may one day achieve safe results. Until then, I believe
that families and physicians should be allowed to handle such matters without
being subject to criminal penalties.
Over twenty years ago and partly in response to
worries about assisted reproduction, Congress banned federal funds from being
used for embryonic research. Over subsequent decades, many scientists tried to
get this ban overturned, but it was very difficult to do so. If cloning were similarly
banned or criminalized, it would be very difficult to ever undo such prohibitions
– no matter what science later learned. Let us learn from the past and not
repeat its mistakes. Let us leave such matters to physicians, scientists, and
families, not to the federal government.
Finally, if government bans attempts at human
cloning because of worries about developmental defects, will such a ban be the
first step toward greater federal intrusions? As a result of the Human Genome
Project, more fetuses will be tested for genetic diseases and more parents will
learn that their fetuses carry genetic defects. Only instead of probable or likely genetic defects, these babies will have certain defects. Here it is important that some couples decide not to abort such fetuses and decide to carry
them to term.
In this situation, and for the worthy aim of
preventing such defects, will the same government be forced to encourage or
even require abortions of such
fetuses with genetic diseases? Doesn’t the same goal and the same expansion of
federal power justify both intrusions into reproductive freedom? If our moral criterion
is the best interest of future children, how can government ban reproduction
for likely defects but not for certain defects?
The reverse of this point is also interesting.
If preventing defective children justifies federal intervention in the bedroom,
and if cloning one day becomes safer
than sexual reproduction, will cloning then be the only required way to have children – based on the good of future
children?
Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to testify today.
References:
Gregory E. Pence, Re-Creating Medicine: Ethical
Issues at the Frontiers of Medicine (Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham,
Md. 2001) (on the effects of the ban on federal funding of embryo research).
Gregory E. Pence, Who’s Afraid of Human Cloning?
Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Md. 1998) (on irrationalities about cloning
humans).
Gregory Pence, Classic Cases in Medical Ethics: Accounts of
the Cases that Shaped Medical Ethics, 3rd edition,
McGraw-Hill, 2000 (on the history of assisted reproduction and past controversy).
|
