Morally misguided scientific paralysis (Bruce Fein, Washington Times, 4/16/2002)
Bruce Fein, the general counsel for the Center for Law and Accountability, argues against a blanket ban on human embryo cloning for research or reproductive purposes. In doing so, he employs the following analogy:
Suppose a child, a middle-aged married female, and an elderly man are adrift on a raft. All will starve before reaching shore unless one is cannibalized. Their lives have been equally irreproachable. Doesn't morality dictate killing the man in his sunset hours to save the infant and spouse with exciting long years ahead instead of letting all three perish? Doesn't the life-giving end justify the homicidal means, analogous to the right to kill in self-defense or defense of another?
I was initially going to say that this was a stupid fact situation. But instead, I think it's just a stupid conclusion. No, morality does not dictate killing the man to save the others. The means do not justify the ends. The murder is unjustified. Any number of things could happen that would have made the killing of the man unnecessary, with the most likely their being rescued before they reach shore.
In any case, morality dictates that one of them should sacrifice themselves to save the other two. Obviously, the infant wouldn't have the mental capacity to grasp the situation, leaving either the woman or the man to sacrifice themselves. In no case, however, should 2 of the 3 decide to kill the other without that person's consent. That person has as much of a right to live as the other three. The key point is that someone must voluntarily sacrifice their life. In the case of an embryo destroyed for research purposes (which is the case of embryos that would be cloned for research), the embryo has not made a voluntary decision to be destroyed.
Some people find it easy to justify destroying embryos because they rationalize that an embryo isn't really a person. They haven't been born, we can't talk to them, etc. But there is no doubt that an embryo is a lifeform. And there is further no doubt that that lifeform is human in nature. There is no way around that fact.
In fact, the fact situation made up by Bruce Fein actually happened. My first year criminal law class discussed it. The case is called Regina v. Dudley and Stephens. It's an older case, and I seem to remember it being a British case, but I can't remember at the moment. The court in that case upheld the defendants' convictions for murder. To paraphrase the court (taken from my notes), someone should have sacrificed themselves to save the others or accept the consequences instead of three of the men deciding to kill the weaker fourth one.
Meanwhile, Benjamin Domenech had a good post on cloning last night dealing with libertarian support of it.
Comments