General+Information

Many people know about attempts at cloning, but most fail to seize the potential of cloning. With recent scientific efforts, such as the Human Genome Project, many experts believe that human cloning is feasible. The moral and social implications of creating artificial life are a hugely controversial debate and many students and adults alike are tragically uninformed on the subject. While it would be a waste of time to delve into the background of cloning, as most people have a basic grasp of what it actually is and the field is simply advancing too fast to have a background. The important thing to know about cloning is the scientific opinion. While animals, such as Dolly the sheep, have been successfully cloned and many do support this practice beneficial to the advancement of scientific perspective, an attempt at human cloning would be extremely controversial. Scientists appear to have drawn a line in the sands of society defining what and what is not acceptable in this practice that some have defined as ‘playing God.’ The Declaration of Helsinki, a medical code that most, if not all scientists and doctors accept, declares that “In the purely scientific application of medical research carried out on a human being, it is the duty of the physician to remain the protector of the life and health of that person on whom biomedical research is being carried out” (Post 184). Basically, always protect human life. In a potentially dangerous experiment and the public scrutinizing, this is important to keep in mind. This does not explain what scientists feel about the actual process of creating artificial life. While somewhat outdated, the 1980 publishing of the Principles of Medical Ethics does declare the following: “…compassion and respect for human dignity…advance scientific knowledge” (Post 164-165). By taking these opinions to heart, always protect human life and conduct research without compromising human dignity and purity, scientists may conduct research such as cloning. This leads to an unsatisfying gray area of research. Scientists will continue cloning, as long as it is safe for those involved and doesn’t mock human existence. Many scientists do believe that human cloning would advance knowledge and understanding of the life-giving process, but perhaps this generation is not prepared to meet the reality of a person created by and for science. Regardless, one would do wise to take these opinions to heart and to mind, as this field is and will continue to change and shift rapidly in the near future as more breakthroughs occur. If one had to assign a winner to the category of most misunderstood experiment, it would almost certainly be given to the population’s understanding of stem cell research. In essence, the ‘blank slate cells’ taken from a fetus are used to created whatever specialized cells we like, simply by exposing the stem cells to the desired ones. Brain cells, nerve cells, skin cells, all of these are possible to create with stem-cell research. With the newest administration in charge, stem-cell research has taken a drastic new policy. Previously, stem-cell research had frozen, as more new stem-cell lines were not being created to experiment upon. Now, as policies and technology change, it is imperative that this generation knows the truth about the controversy surrounding stem-cell research and the scientists who are often ignored in the debate over who is right and who is wrong. The first thing to keep in mind is that most scientists follow one particular adage: “ The line of distinction is drawn between unconventional and unnecessary” (Post 178). In this progressive era, even the churches, the most staunchly conservative bastions, find themselves realigning their stances on stem cells. The Presbyterian Church did say this: “As people of faith we are called to be partners with God in healing and in the alleviation of human pain and suffering. With careful regulation, we affirm the use of stem cell tissue for research that may result in the restoring of health to those suffering from serious illness” (CAMR 2). Keeping this in mind, another controversy arises, even as the scientific opinion has been defined; the patent of living organisms. It is common practice now, as more and more stem-cell lines are created, that research clinics and scientists feel the need to protect their work. This leads to the inevitable dilemma of claiming ownership of life, something that many deem as playing God or impeding scientific progress. This practice has been especially popular in recent months, as more and more animal ‘hybrids’ are artificially merged. Hybrids, such as the infamous “ear-mouse”, are called a threat to human dignity by some scientists (Post 78). In a broader spectrum, many critics of this practice argue that patenting life-forms “promotes an unhealthy, disrespectful, or materialistic view of life” (Post 78). The most important thing to keep in mind when thinking about this topic is that the vast majority of scientists do not wish to claim ownership of living organisms. This is a dangerous and impractical method of protecting research. Guarding methods and technology from fellow scientists is simply irresponsible. Scientists and much of the public are widely in favor of embryonic stem-cell research experiments and, with a little application of morality and benevolence to one’s fellow researcher, this practice will not be abused. With the impending healthcare reform controversy and the baby-boom generation entering the retirement phase, end-of-life consultation has rarely, if ever, been this poignant a topic in our news. The controversies surrounding euthanasia are bolstered by the additional problems with living wills, brain dead patients, and the mentally unfit attempting to make decisions regarding their life’s end in the midst of a painful terminal illness. British historian Arnold Toynbee once said, “Death is un-American” (Post 27), and it seems this statement could not be truer. The United States is one of the only first world countries without a regulated assisted suicide program. One could mistake this for a total lack of support on an ethical standpoint, but this is not the case. Many states, such as Washington and Oregon, have taken the initiative to pass legislature allowing for voluntary euthanasia and it seems that this nation’s opinions of end-of-life decisions are becoming more and more progressive, especially with healthcare reform on everyone’s mind and the largest generation in our nation’s history entering the elderly stages of their life. Recently, many court cases have rules with a humanist view towards euthanasia. The 1981 case of //Tucker v. Lower// made rulings on brain dead vs. physiologically dead that declared that legally dead is having an irreversible stop of circulation or the brain and brain stem cease all functions (Post 24). //Washington// //v. Glucksberg// became a Supreme Court case giving the state of Washington the right to allow physicians to conduct voluntary euthanasia on willing applicants (Post 164-165). Many versions of the healthcare reform act have taken measures to include end-of-life consultation as a provision under this new policy. Hospices and hospitals unofficially allow terminally ill patients to die by virtue of ceasing treatment, giving a reduced treatment or by chemical means. America is rapidly becoming a country where those who want to die, can die legally and without being a public pariah. Medical professionals, doctors, and much of the public alike are in unified agreement that euthanasia is the right thing for this country’s people.