Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T15:00:18.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clones, Harms, and Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Rosamond Rhodes
Rosamond Rhodes
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Medical Education, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As the possibility of cloning humans emerges on the horizon people are worrying about the morality of using the new technology. They are anxious about the ethical borders that might be crossed when duplicate humans can be produced by separating the cells of a newly fertilized human egg or, in the more distant future, by creating a zygote from an existing person's genetic material. They are apprehensive about eugenics, concerned about creating humans as sources of spare parts for others, uneasy about producing humans without intending to allow them to live and develop, and uncomfortable about using duplicate humans as business ventures.

Type
Special Section: Designs on Life: Choice, Control, and Responsibility in Genetic Manipulation
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , Summer 1995 , pp. 285 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Ramsey, P. The morality of abortion. Life or Death: Ethics and Options. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1968:72–3.Google Scholar

2. Kamm, F. Moral problems in cloning embryos. American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Medicine 1994;Spring:91.Google Scholar

3. Mill, JS. On Liberty. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 1978:9.Google Scholar

4. See note 3. Mill, . 1978:73–4.Google Scholar

5. See note 3. Mill, . 1978:74.Google Scholar

6. The skeptics’ argument was forcefully presented to the author by Joe Fitschen in conversation.

7. New York Times, 1994;03 10:A1, B10.Google Scholar

8. This discussion draws on a paper by Battin, MP, Seven (more) caveats concerning the discussion of euthanasia in The Netherlands. American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Medicine 1993;92:76–80.Google ScholarPubMed

9. See note 3. Mill, . 1978:54.Google Scholar

10. This section follows a paper by E, Murphy, A history of nursing ethics, delivered at the Oxford-Mount Sinai Conference,New College, Oxford,April 6, 1994.Google Scholar

11. Committee on Assessing Genetic Risks, Division of Health Sciences Policy, Institute of Medicine, Assessing genetic risks: implications for health and social policy. Washington, DC, 1993.

12. See note 3. Mill, . 1978:74.Google Scholar