Skip to main content
Log in

A Heideggerian Defense of Therapeutic Cloning

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Debates about the legitimacy of embryonic stem-cell research have largely focused on the type of ethical value that should be accorded to the human embryo in␣vitro. In this paper, I try to show that, to broaden the scope of these debates, one needs to articulate an ontology that does not limit itself to biological accounts, but that instead focuses on the embryo’s place in a totality of relevance surrounding and guiding a human practice. Instead of attempting to substantiate the ethical value of the embryo exclusively by pointing out that it has potentiality for personhood, one should examine the types of practices in which the embryo occurs and focus on the ends inherent to these practices. With this emphasis on context, it becomes apparent that the embryo’s ethical significance can only be understood by elucidating the attitudes that are established towards it in the course of specific activities. The distinction between fertilized embryos and cloned embryos proves to be important in this contextual analysis, since, from the point of view of practice, the two types of embryos appear to belong to different human practices: (assisted) procreation and medical research, respectively. In my arguments, I highlight the concepts of practice, technology, and nature, as they have been analyzed in the phenomenological tradition, particularly by Martin Heidegger. I come to the conclusion that therapeutic cloning should be allowed, provided that it turns out to be a project that benefits medical science in its aim to battle diseases. Important precautions have to be taken, however, in order to safeguard the practice of procreation from becoming perverted by the aims and attitudes of medical science when the two practices intersect. The threat in question needs to be taken seriously, since it concerns the structure and goal of practices which are central to our very self understanding as human beings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agar N. Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. London: Blackwell, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by D. Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.

  • Baylis F. “Human Cloning: Three Mistakes and an Alternative.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (2002): 319–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bioethics 16, no. 6 (2002): 493–567.

  • Borgmann A. “Heidegger and Ethics Beyond the Call of Duty.” In: J. E. Faulconer, M. A. Wrathall. (eds) Appropriating Heidegger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. pp. 68–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A. E. et␣al. From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus H. L. “Heidegger’s History of the Being of Equipment.” In: H. L. Dreyfus, H. Hall. (eds) Heidegger: A Critical Reader. London: Blackwell, 1992. pp. 173–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. “Playing God: Genes, Clones, and Luck.” In Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. 427–52. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.

  • Eberl J. T. “The Beginning of Personhood: A Thomistic Biological Analysis.” Bioethics 14 (2000): 134–57. .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edgar A. The Philosophy of Habermas. Chesham: Acumen Publishing Limited, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott C. Bioethics, Culture and Identity: A Philosophical Disease. London: Routledge, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fell J. P. “The Familiar and the Strange: On the Limits of Praxis in the Early Heidegger.” In: H. L. Dreyfus, H. Hall. (eds) Heidegger: A Critical Reader. London: Blackwell, 1992. pp. 65–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck L. Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gethmann-Siefert, A. and O. Pöggeler. Heidegger und die praktische Philosophie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1988.

  • Gómez-Lobo A. “Does Respect for Embryos Entail Respect for Gametes?” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (2004): 199–208. .

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J. Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur: Auf dem Weg zu einer liberalen Eugenik? Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauskeller C. “How Traditions of Ethical Reasoning and Institutional Processes Shape Stem Cell Research in Britain.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (2004): 509–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger M. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Translated by W. Lovitt. New York: Harper & Row, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger M. “Letter on ‘Humanism’.” In: D. F. Krell. (eds) Basic Writings. London: Routledge, 1993. .

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger M. Being and Time. Translated by J. Stambaugh. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996. .

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann B. “Medicine as Techne—A Perspective from Antiquity.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28 (2003): 403–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm S. “Going to the Roots of the Stem Cell Controversy.” Bioethics 16 (2002): 493–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxley A. Brave New World. London: Voyager Classics, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höffe O., et␣al. Gentechnik und Menschenwürde: An den Grenzen von Ethik und Recht. Köln: DuMont, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas H. Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29, no. 5 (2004): 499–640.

  • MacIntyre A. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. London: Duckworth, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahowald M. B. “Respect for Embryos and the Potentiality Argument.” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (2004): 209–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauron A., Bernard B. “The European Embryonic Stem-Cell Debate and the Difficulties of Embryological Kantianism.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (2004): 563–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordenfelt L. Health, Science, and Ordinary Language. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oksala, J. “What is Feminist Phenomenology? Thinking Birth Philosophically.” Radical Philosophy, 126 (2004).

  • Quarfood M. Transcendental Idealism and the Organism: Essays on Kant. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raffoul F., and D. Pettigrew. Heidegger and Practical Philosophy. Albany, NY: SUNY, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson J. A. “Symbolic Issues in Embryo Research.” Hastings Center Report 25 (1995): 37–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seel M. “Heidegger und die Ethik des Spiels.” In: S. Blasche. (eds) Martin Heidegger: Innen- und Aussen-ansichten. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1991, 244–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer P. Unsanctifying Human Life: Essays on Ethics. London: Blackwell, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenaeus F. “The Phenomenology of Health and Illness.” In: K. Toombs. (eds) Handbook of Phenomenology and Medicine. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001, pp. 87–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenaeus F. “Hermeneutics of Medicine in the Wake of Gadamer: The Issue of Phronesis.” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24 (2003): 407–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svenaeus F. “Phenomenology of Medicine.” In: H. Dreyfus, M. Wrathall. (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Phenomenology and Existentialism. London: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 412–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg J. H. The Changing Nature of Man: Introduction to a Historical Psychology. New York: Norton, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams B. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young I. M. “Pregnant Embodiment: Subjectivity and Alienation.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (1984): 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank anonymous reviewers and the members of the bioethics seminar at University of Linköping for their valuable comments to and critique of earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fredrik Svenaeus.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Svenaeus, F. A Heideggerian Defense of Therapeutic Cloning. Theor Med Bioeth 28, 31–62 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-007-9025-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-007-9025-1

Keywords

Navigation