Multiplicity

The 1978 film The Boys from Brazil, directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, told a fictional tale of how a Nazi doctor planned to literally recreate his Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, by using the former dictator’s blood samples and producing clones. Could this really happen? Would someone ‘out there’ dare to clone a Hitler or a Sadam Hussein? Why would they?
As you can see, the issue of cloning, even in a fictional story, raises questions, if not one’s temper. The speed with which science has progressed on this subject is breathtaking, the millions of dollars spent on research is beyond belief. The question that I keep asking is Why? However, to help those who ask How? I will rely on Dr. Patrick Dixon, of ACET, to explain: To produce a clone, we need to get hold of a complete set of chromosomes and put them into an egg and see what happens. It is easy to do this on a frog’s egg because the nucleus is so large you can see the nuclei as the black dots in fresh frogspawn…This nucleus contains only half a set of chromosomes and would not give ‘instructions’ to divide until the other half is provided by a sperm at fertilization…we can borrow a complete set of chromosomes by taking a whole nucleus out of a skin cell. If we now inject the skin nucleus into the egg (nuclear transplantation) then a remarkable transformation happens: the nucleus instructs the cell to divide repeatedly to form an embryo. (The Genetic Revolution by Dr. Patrick Dixon, 1993 page 46)

A very dangerous argument

Although cloning animals like frogs has been done for years (it was first carried out successfully by Dr. John Gurdon in Oxford in 1961), it was not until the cloning of ‘Dolly’ the sheep in 1997 by scientists at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh that governments began to seriously consider the implications of cloning. In response to this, the media world-wide speculated when, not if, the first human clone would appear. The Washington Post produced a survey that showed 66% of its readers were opposed to human cloning. Inspite of this, the first cloned human being, an embryo, was created in November 1998.
If we get back to my eternal question Why? I am offered an answer by the parliamentarians in the United Kingdom. Both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the two chambers that make up the UK Parliamentary system, have recently passed legislation that allows the cloning of human embryos for ‘therapeutic purposes’ to obtain ‘stem cells’ which in turn are used in the treatment of various illness like cancer. Stem cells are master cells that can give rise to other cells and have the capability to grow into any body tissue. The use of the word ‘therapeutic’ is another attempt to use a form of language to side track some opponents of cloning. The proponents of cloning maintain that people who suffer from Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases would have research into their conditions curtailed if ‘therapeutic cloning’ were banned. Their argument is that the medical benefits outweigh the ethical arguments, in other words the ends justify the means. This is a very dangerous argument.

An instrument of gain

Like abortion and euthanasia, cloning brings up the issue of status of the embryo. If we agree that life begins at conception then that human life should be afforded the same rights as any human, at any stage in its development, be it zygote or geriatric. We should not exploit humans. We should not violate their integrity. It could be argued that we violate the integrity of an embryo by cloning it. Both the embryo and its clone are used as a means to an end. Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, … where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons, all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. (Evangelium Vitae, 3) The embryo in cloning is treated ‘as a mere instrument of gain’. The therapeutic aspect of cloning is not for the benefit of the clone or the parent embryo.
The cloning of embryos to obtain ‘stem cells’ is not necessary as stem cells from adults and umbilical cords are an ethical alternative. Stem cells from the patients being treated are 100% compatible with the patient and will avoid rejection problems. So why use stem cells from cloned embryos? To quote Cardinal Winning, Archbishop of Glasgow, Since there is an ethical alternative to embryo cloning available – the use of adult stem cells – there is no need to go down this very dangerous path to achieve progress.
It would appear to be scientific pride that is the moving force behind cloning. To have the capability to do something does not mean that we should do it.
There is a link between the cloning of human embryos and in-vitro fertilization treatment for infertility, and that is both are to be regulated by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act of 1990. In this piece of legislation embryos may be experimented on up to 14 days after the cell starts to divide. By adding a Statutory Instrument to the Act – like an addition or clarification – it is now possible to create clones of embryos and experiment on these tiny humans within the same timescale. The end result is the same, the destruction of the embryo.
In in-vitro fertilization as many as 14 embryos are created for one treatment. By law only 3 can be implanted into the womb of the mother. The other 11 or so may be frozen for future use or experimented on. It would appear that the legislation covering in-vitro fertilization was not solely put on the statute books to help infertile couples but is there to aid experimentation. There is no indication in the limitation of numbers of clones that may be produced from embryos. The act of creating embryos for experimentation is condemned by the Church explicitly in Evangelium Vitae, 63: ...it must nonetheless be stated that the use of human embryos or foetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect shown to a child once born, just as to every person.

A silent holocaust

There is no doubt that infertility is on the increase. The reasons for such an increase are varied, ranging from environmental to sexually transmitted diseases, from artificial contraception to abortion. In-vitro fertilization is being offered to an increasing amount of childless couples, and even singles. There is a great pain suffered by those who would dearly love to have a child of their own; it is compared to a form of grief. So when couples are given a chance of conceiving a child through in-vitro fertilization it is understandable that many would seize this opportunity no matter what the cost is.
What has been the cost? Sadly, another silent holocaust. From 1991, the year the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act was enacted, until 1998 some 760,000 embryos were created by in-vitro fertilization in the United Kingdom. Of that figure, 184,000 were stored (frozen), 48,000 were used in research, and 238,000 were destroyed. How many more human embryos will be experimented on and/or destroyed by cloning?
Above I mentioned ‘therapeutic’ cloning; the other category that has great cause for concern is ‘reproductive’ cloning. In other words producing a replica person. Although governments have ruled out this form of cloning it is hard to imagine that someone, somewhere, will not try to clone a human being. Imagine this scenario, an only child is killed by a car accident and the distraught parents have asked that some of their child’s body tissue be kept in order to produce a clone. Science fiction? Not really. The combination of distraught parents, scientific pride and a government’s arrogance can result in such a scenario becoming fact.
Would such a cloned person be an exact copy of the individual he or she had been cloned from? There is no evidence to support that possibility, and where there are unanswered questions like that there is every possibility that a scientist somewhere will attempt to find an answer.

Moral condemnation

Cloning is the latest procedure where the integrity of the human person is being threatened, where human life itself is treated as a commodity – a thing to possess or throw away. As far as Great Britain is concerned this trend started with the Abortion Act in 1967 and has continued right through to this present year, 2001, when Parliament approved ‘therapeutic cloning’ in January.
Although the encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae does not specifically mention cloning there is reference to the production of humans for the process of experimentation. When speaking about experimentation on embryos as an act on their dignity Pope John Paul II says:  This moral condemnation also regards procedures that exploit living human embryos and foetuses sometimes specifically ‘produced’ for this purpose by in-vitro fertilization either to be used as ‘biological material’ or as providers of organs or tissues for transplants in the treatment of certain diseases. The killing of innocent human creatures, even if carried out to help others, constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act. (Evangelium Vitae, 63)
How far will our disregard for human life go? We already have laws that cast doubt on the dignity and integrity of life in the womb. There are moves to deny the ill and the elderly their dignity. Having a child is more of a right than a gift from God. Cloning is another infamy that shows contempt for life in which God is the co-creator and as such threatens the integrity of creation and is a supreme dishonour to the Creator (Evangelium Vitae, 3)