BMJ

Should We Clone Human Beings? Cloning as a Source of Tissue for Transplantation
Author(s): Julian Savulescu
Source: Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 87-95
Published by: BMJ
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27718262 .
Accessed: 18/04/2014 10:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp .
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

BMJ is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Medical Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.175.16.2 on Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:40:41 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal ofMedical Ethics 1999;25:87-95

we

Should a source

of

human

tissue

The Murdoch

Savulescu

Julian

clone

for

Institute,

at all, is to provide or tissues for medical use, Some have argued transplantation. especially this raises

4.

cells

no new

issues

ethical

those

above

or fetuses

to produce

raised

cloning

the sake

embryos for cells, tissues or even organs for therapy, or fetus. by abortion of the embryo

followed

ofMedical

(Journal
Keywords:
onic stem

Ethics

Cloning; cells; fetal

It uses

5.

that by I argue that any form of embryo1 experimentation. this research is less morally than other problematic research. it is not merely
Indeed,
embryo morally but morally that we employ permissible required

providing

a person's to genetic individu right cannot that twins is?identical
(whatever
ality a right). have such
It allows selection. eugenic
It violates

is one

if there

self-compatible

Australia

Melbourne,

Hospital,

3.

Abstract
The most publicly justifiable application of human cloning, as

Cloning

transplantation

Children's

Royal

beings?

6.

as a means. people are worse in off

Clones

especially psychological

terms

of wellbeing,

wellbeing.

are

7. There

concerns, safety of serious genetic shortened lifespan. cancer

or

an

especially

risk

increased

malformation,

of
There

are,

favour

of

a number

however, human of

reproductive

in

arguments
These

cloning.

include:

1999;25:87-95)

autonomy; transplantation; tissue; embryo experimentation; embry abor 1. General
2.

tion; potential

justifications. make personal

liberty to Freedom

reproductive

choices.

Introduction
When news broke in 1997 that IanWilmut had colleagues there was sional an

and

wave fear bureaucratic

new

Almost

technique. condemned.2"6 ing was have Spain legislation Sweden

Slovakia, implicitly and

two bills before comprehensively ban implicit and

Human

issues

universally,

cloning; have Some

indicated

that

research

into

on

for

in

is no

and

Norway,

the

use

or

explicit

against
1.
2.

be possible

human

It is liable
It

violates

autonomy,

several

reproductive

arguments

a

given

right etc. to

without
9.

immortality. or (with

cloning

a

loved

gene

important

(with

or without

dead

relative

gene or (with

gene

"Insurance"

therapy/enhancement). a split freeze in case embryo to the first: as a source of happens

something or as replacement tissue 10. Source of human cells 11.

without

socially

infertility

therapy/enhancement). of Replacement

12.
The
cally them Research

stem

into an for or the first. tissue. cell

to

differentiation of understanding

to prevent

Cloning

individuality,

arguments examined here.1011

in favour favour cloning:

person's

of

enquiry. of and

aging

a genetic

disease.

is

to abuse.

selfhood,

people.
7. Treatment

scientific

oncogenesis.

for

in England.7

been

6.

has

This

have