Balwant Rai, S. K. Dhattarwal, Deepa Kharb, Rajnish Jain, Latika Kharb, Simmi Kharb, S. C. Anand.
The Internet Journal of Law, Healthcare and Ethics. 2007. Volume 4 Number 2.
Another position defends the use of human cloning in medically based circumstances, provided that the safety of the procedure can be guaranteed.8 According to this perspective, clone would meet an infertile comple's desire to participate biologically in development of a new human being, and it could nurture the emotional bond between the partners. If conceiving a child with the genes of atleast one partner is highly important for infertile couples, or is they have reservations about using the genetics of anonymous donors, human clone would be welcome alternative.9
Human cloning would solve the problem of finding a transplant donor who is an acceptable organ or tissue match and would eliminate, or drastically reduce, the risk of transplant rejection by the host. The availability of human cloning for this purpose would amount to a form of insurance policy to enable treatment of certain kinds of medical needs.10,11,12 Kahn (1989) has proposed human cloning then might well produce individuals with exceptional capacities, but we simply do not know how close their clones would be in capacities or accomplishments to the great individuals for whom they were cloned.13 Human cloning and research on human cloning might make possible important advances in scientific knowledge.14
The birth of a long awaited child for couples experiencing infertility or genetic risk might have positive effects in families in which genetic relatedness is highly valued. On the other hand, human clone would create the new relationship of a person being raised by a genetic twin who is also the social parent.22 Although this need not be injurious, the birth of a child who shares the genome of one parent might contribute to feelings of inadequacy among siblings who do not share a parent's genome or feelings of inadequacy among siblings who do not share a parent's genome or feelings of superiority by child who does. A situation in which partners have different degrees of genetic relatedness to a child may or may not be troublesome. This is not unlike situations in which a family's children have different genetic backgrounds because of remarriage or conception questions about who is related to whom and about privileges and responsibilities in event of divorce.
Thus close supervision of development and use of this technology in order to prevent complete breakdown of the existing world special order and prevent socio-halachic problems for generation to come.
1. Wilmut IM, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KHS. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 1997; 385 : 810-3.
2. SV.S. National Biaethics Advisory Committee. 6 June 1997. "Cloning Human Beings" Washington, D.C.
3. World Health Organization, WHO Director General Condemns Human Cloning, Geneva, Switzerland : World Health Organization Press Office, March 11, 1997.
4. Steinberg A, Loike J.D. Human Cloning : Scientific Ethical and Jewish Perspectives. Jewish Medical Ethics. 1998; 125 : 11-19.
5. Robertson J.A., Children of choice : Freedom and the new reproductive techniques, Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 1994 (a).
6. Brock D.W., Reproductive freedom : it nature, bases and limits, in health care ethics : critical issues for health professionals, D. Thomasma, J Monagle (eds.), Craithersburg, MD : Aspoen Publishers, 1994.
7. Annas G.J. Regulatory models for human embryo cloning : The free market professional guidelines, and government restrictions, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1994; 4 (3) : 235-49.
8. Robertson J.A. Two models of human cloning : Hofstra Law Review 1997 ; 27 : 609-38.
9. Strong C. Cloning and infertility. Combo Health Care Ethics 1998; 7 : 279-93.
10. Harris J. Wonder women and superman : The ethics of biotechnology, Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1992.
11. Kahn C. Can be achieve immortality? Free Inquiry, 1989; 9 : 14-18.
12. Robertson JA. A ban on cloning and cloning research is Unjustified, testimony before the national bioethics advisory commission, March 1997.
13. Kderberg J. Experimental genetics and human evolution, the American Naturalist, 1966; 100 : 519-31.
14. Smith GP. Intimations of immortality : clones, cyrons and the law, University of New South Wales Law Journal, 1983 ; 6 : 119-32.
15. Anns GJ. Why we should ban human cloning. N Engl J Med. 1998; 339 : 122-5.
16. Kass LK. The wisdom of repugnance. New Republic 1997; 17-26.
17. Callahan D. Perspective on cloning : a threat to individual uniqueness, Los.
18. Studdard A. The lone clone, man and medicine : The Journal of values and ethics in health care, 1978; 3 : 109-114.
19. Rainer JD. Commentary, man and medicine : Journal of values and ethics in health care, 1978; 3 : 115-117.
20. Macklin R. Splitting embryos on the slippery slope : ethics and public policy, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 1994; 4 : 209-26.
21. Turner PO. Love's labor lost : legal and ethical implications in artificial procreation, University of Detriot Journal of Urban Law, 1981; 58 : 459-87.
22. The ethics committee of the American Society for reproductive medicine : Human somatic cell nuclear transfer. Fertil Steril : 2000; 5 : 1573-9.