Literature DB >> 10226914

Human cloning and child welfare.

J Burley1, J Harris.   

Abstract

In this paper we discuss an objection to human cloning which appeals to the welfare of the child. This objection varies according to the sort of harm it is expected the clone will suffer. The three formulations of it that we will consider are: 1. Clones will be harmed by the fearful or prejudicial attitudes people may have about or towards them (H1); 2. Clones will be harmed by the demands and expectations of parents or genotype donors (H2); 3. Clones will be harmed by their own awareness of their origins, for example the knowledge that the genetic donor is a stranger (H3). We will show why these three versions of the child welfare objection do not necessarily supply compelling reasons to ban human reproductive cloning. The claim that we will develop and defend in the course of our discussion is that even if it is the case that a cloned child will suffer harms of the type H1-H3, it is none the less permissible to conceive by cloning so long as these cloning-induced welfare deficits are not such as to blight the existence of the resultant child, whoever this may be.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analytical Approach; Genetics and Reproduction

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10226914      PMCID: PMC479192          DOI: 10.1136/jme.25.2.108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  7 in total

1.  The wisdom of repugnance: why we should ban the cloning of humans.

Authors:  Leon R Kass
Journal:  New Repub       Date:  1997-06-02

2.  DNA microsatellite analysis of Dolly.

Authors:  D Ashworth; M Bishop; K Campbell; A Colman; A Kind; A Schnieke; S Blott; H Griffin; C Haley; J McWhir; I Wilmut
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1998-07-23       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  DNA fingerprinting Dolly.

Authors:  E N Signer; Y E Dubrova; A J Jeffreys; C Wilde; L M Finch; M Wells; M Peaker
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1998-07-23       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells.

Authors:  I Wilmut; A E Schnieke; J McWhir; A J Kind; K H Campbell
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1997-02-27       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  "Goodbye Dolly?" The ethics of human cloning.

Authors:  J Harris
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  A life in the shadow: one reason why we should not clone humans.

Authors:  S Holm
Journal:  Camb Q Healthc Ethics       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 1.284

7.  Full-term development of mice from enucleated oocytes injected with cumulus cell nuclei.

Authors:  T Wakayama; A C Perry; M Zuccotti; K R Johnson; R Yanagimachi
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1998-07-23       Impact factor: 49.962

  7 in total
  7 in total

1.  Doctors' orders, rationality and the good life: commentary on Savulescu.

Authors:  J Harris
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Human reproductive cloning is unethical because it undermines autonomy: commentary on Savulescu.

Authors:  R Williamson
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Should doctors intentionally do less than the best?

Authors:  J Savulescu
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  Sex selection and regulated hatred.

Authors:  John Harris
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 5.  Ethics of using preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select a stem cell donor for an existing person.

Authors:  R J Boyle; J Savulescu
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-11-24

6.  Procreative liberty, enhancement and commodification in the human cloning debate.

Authors:  Sandra Shapshay
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2012-12

7.  The global governance of human cloning: the case of UNESCO.

Authors:  Adèle Langlois
Journal:  Palgrave Commun       Date:  2017-03-21
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.