Surname 1

Student’s Name

Instructor’s Name

Course Title

Date

Ethical Aspects of Cloning

Cloning is not a novel concept since scientists have been experimenting with the

procedure for decades. The famous sheep, named Dolly, was the first animal to be successfully

cloned, paving the way for discussions on human cloning possibilities for further research. While

this procedure has led to the development of vital drugs and new therapies, there are several

controversies. The ethical issues of cloning hinge on the efficacy and safety of the procedure, its

effects on the parent/child relationship, and the commodification of human life as a research

product.

The safety and efficacy of cloning have raised fresh doubts from an ethical dimension.

Although there has been a significant increase in the general efficiency and safety of cloning in

mammals, it is not yet confirmed to be a safe process (Whitworth & Prather 2010). Reproductive

cloning is an ineffective technique since cloned embryos cannot grow into healthy individuals.

Researchers have noted some severe deformities on cloned mammals. These include abnormal

birth size and various anomalies in vital organs such as the heart, liver, and brain. Problems with

the immune system and the risk of premature aging are other sources of concern. For example,

Dolly was cloned after hundreds of failed attempts only to die after six years (Highfield &

Wilmut, 2006). This significantly low efficiency, alongside other safety concerns, inhibits the

application of reproductive cloning.

Another ethical implication of cloning centers on its effect on child-parent relationships.

 Surname 2

Objections to reproductive cloning are premised on the offspring's lack of unique genes from

both parents. As a result, parent-child relationships would suffer some setbacks when parents

regard their children as mere objects or projects of their will (Shapsha, 2012). Thus, permitting

parents to choose the traits of their children through cloning would negatively affect the parent-

child relationship. In essence, cloned children's lives would be less satisfactory than those sired

conventionally. Therefore, cloning is unethical since it destroys the emotional attachment that a

parent has to their child and leads to objectification.

Lastly, cloning is an unethical technique that may result in the commodification of human

life as a research product. Though human labor is commodified in industrialized societies,

human life commodification through cloning is a vastly different order. Cloning abandons the

natural intent of procreation to adopt a manufacturing objective, where certain traits become

desirable (Shapsha, 2012). Consequently, cloned embryos become objects of deliberate design

for commercialization purposes. The beings created through cloning would regard themselves as

objects created to serve the purposes of another. Besides, human life commodification for

research undermines the socially accepted principles of human dignity and individuality.

Cloning remains a controversial issue due to the inherent ethical issues concerning its

efficacy and safety, its effects on the parent/child relationship, and its commodification of human

life. This procedure is not only ineffective but also has many safety concerns. Besides, clones are

more likely to be objectified by their parents, thus severing the parent-child relationships.

Moreover, cloning leads to the commodification of human life as a research product and the

commercialization of embryos perceived to possess superior traits.

 Surname 3

Works Cited

Highfield, R., & Wilmut, I. (2006). After Dolly: The promise and perils of cloning. W.W. Norton

and Company, Ltd.

Shapsha, S. (2012). Procreative liberty, enhancement and commodification in the human cloning

debate. Journal of Health Philosophy and Policy, 20(4), 356–366.

Whitworth, K.M., & Prather, R.S. (2010). Somatic cell nuclear transfer efficiency: How can it be

improved through nuclear remodeling and reprogramming? Molecular Reproduction and

Development, 77(12), 1001–1015.