Both experimental and therapeutic uses of the new reproductive technologies have been governed not by the medical ideology of the best interests of patients and their children, but by the market ideology of profit maximization under the guise of "reproductive liberty." Government in our constitutional, democratic society has the authority and obligation to make and enforce reasonable regulations to manage the new reproductive market in order to protect the interests of the public, prospective parents, and their future children. The "cloning" (...) debate provides a useful opportunity to compare and contrast the competing regulatory models of the free market, professional guidelines, and government restrictions. (shrink)

Somatic cell gene therapy has yielded promising results. If germ cell gene therapy can be developed, the promise is even greater: hundreds of genetic diseases might be virtually eliminated. But some claim the procedure is morally unacceptable. We thoroughly and sympathetically examine several possible reasons for this claim but find them inadequate. There is no moral reason, then, not to develop and employ germ-line gene therapy. Taking the offensive, we argue next that medicine has a prima facie moral obligation to (...) do so. (shrink)

Neither the George Washington University embryo splitting experiment nor the technique of embryo splitting itself has ethical flaws. The experiment harmed or wronged no one, and the investigators followed intramural review procedures for the experiment, although some might fault them for failing to seek extramural consultation or for not waiting until national guidelines for research on preembryos were developed. Ethical objections to such cloning on the basis of possible loss of individuality, possible lessening of individual worth, and concern about potential (...) harm to the resulting children are discussed and challenged, as are objections to the creation of embryos for the purpose of genetic diagnosis. Many of the ethical questions raised by the George Washington experiment are similar to those posed by existing reproductive technologies that allow the simultaneous production of several embryos. A multidisciplinary group should consider whether regulation of cloning is needed, and laws should be enacted to prohibit a commercial market for all frozen embryos. (shrink)

The idea of splitting off cells from embryos to clone human beings sounds so bizarre and dangerous that one would think the practice should not be permitted. A closer look reveals its ethical acceptability.

Genetic engineering's potential for manipulating the “human” and its capacity for arousing fear and recrimination have promoted the use of “bad axioms” in analysis of the ethical issues raised by new technological capabilities. Our task is to consign these formulations, as axioms, to history, and to discern the truth they contain in non‐axiomatic form.

Although many scientists view cloning as a useful procedure for scientific research into early embryo development—one that cannot currently be used to produce multiple copies of humans—the popular literature has led some individuals to view it as sinister. To address the concerns of the public, various conceptions of cloning are distinguished and their basis in fact analyzed. The possible uses, benefits, and detriments of both embryo splitting and nuclear transplantation are explained. Once the nature and purposes of cloning are understood, (...) and the distinctive ethical dilemmas created by embryo splitting and nuclear transplantation are sorted out, these procedures should be clinically implemented to assist in vitro fertilization treatment for those who are infertile and to further other therapeutic and investigational efforts in medicine. (shrink)

We shall have to evolve problem-solvers—galore since each problem they solve creates ten problems more— Piet HeinThe new reproductive technologies, especially in vitro fertilization, have extended the possi- bilities of assisted reproduction to the benefit of the childless couples. At the same time these technologies and their added techniques, however, have fragmented reproduction and exposed the human egg to intervention yet unknown:The embryo may be divided into several embryos; may be sold; donated; cryopreserved; borne by another woman and returned; or (...) used for research;Genetic parentage may be present without sexual intercourse, may be different from social parentage and the natural time-span between fertilization and birth may be interrupted. (shrink)

We shall have to evolve problem-solvers—galore since each problem they solve creates ten problems more— Piet HeinThe new reproductive technologies, especially in vitro fertilization, have extended the possi- bilities of assisted reproduction to the benefit of the childless couples. At the same time these technologies and their added techniques, however, have fragmented reproduction and exposed the human egg to intervention yet unknown:The embryo may be divided into several embryos; may be sold; donated; cryopreserved; borne by another woman and returned; or (...) used for research;Genetic parentage may be present without sexual intercourse, may be different from social parentage and the natural time-span between fertilization and birth may be interrupted. (shrink)

It is a common feature of debates on the regulation of reproductive medicine to find law portrayed as a crude form of intervention consisting in the imposition of inflexible rules on doctors and medical researchers. This paper argues that this view must be replaced by a more accurate assessment of the law's potential role in the regulation of reproductive medicine. From an analysis of the White Paper on human fertilisation and embryology, and in particular the proposed Statutory Licensing Authority, the (...) author contends that far from being an inflexible method of regulation law can foster discussion and compromise. (shrink)