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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agar N. Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. London: Blackwell, 2004.
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.
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.
Buchanan, A. E. et␣al. From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
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.
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. .
Edgar A. The Philosophy of Habermas. Chesham: Acumen Publishing Limited, 2005.
Elliott C. Bioethics, Culture and Identity: A Philosophical Disease. London: Routledge, 1999.
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.
Fleck L. Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1980.
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. .
Habermas J. Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur: Auf dem Weg zu einer liberalen Eugenik? Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2001.
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.
Heidegger M. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Translated by W. Lovitt. New York: Harper & Row, 1977.
Heidegger M. “Letter on ‘Humanism’.” In: D. F. Krell. (eds) Basic Writings. London: Routledge, 1993. .
Heidegger M. Being and Time. Translated by J. Stambaugh. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996. .
Hofmann B. “Medicine as Techne—A Perspective from Antiquity.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28 (2003): 403–25.
Holm S. “Going to the Roots of the Stem Cell Controversy.” Bioethics 16 (2002): 493–507.
Huxley A. Brave New World. London: Voyager Classics, 2001.
Höffe O., et␣al. Gentechnik und Menschenwürde: An den Grenzen von Ethik und Recht. Köln: DuMont, 2002.
Jonas H. Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag, 1979.
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29, no. 5 (2004): 499–640.
MacIntyre A. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. London: Duckworth, 1985.
Mahowald M. B. “Respect for Embryos and the Potentiality Argument.” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (2004): 209–14.
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.
Nordenfelt L. Health, Science, and Ordinary Language. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2001.
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.
Raffoul F., and D. Pettigrew. Heidegger and Practical Philosophy. Albany, NY: SUNY, 2002.
Robertson J. A. “Symbolic Issues in Embryo Research.” Hastings Center Report 25 (1995): 37–38.
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.
Singer P. Unsanctifying Human Life: Essays on Ethics. London: Blackwell, 2002.
Svenaeus F. “The Phenomenology of Health and Illness.” In: K. Toombs. (eds) Handbook of Phenomenology and Medicine. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001, pp. 87–108.
Svenaeus F. “Hermeneutics of Medicine in the Wake of Gadamer: The Issue of Phronesis.” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24 (2003): 407–431.
Svenaeus F. “Phenomenology of Medicine.” In: H. Dreyfus, M. Wrathall. (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Phenomenology and Existentialism. London: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 412–24.
van den Berg J. H. The Changing Nature of Man: Introduction to a Historical Psychology. New York: Norton, 1983.
Williams B. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985.
Young I. M. “Pregnant Embodiment: Subjectivity and Alienation.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (1984): 45–62.
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
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-007-9025-1