Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Brave New Britain: You Can Be Cloned Without Consent in the UK

This is just unbelievable, or better stated given the UK's history in this field, it is all too believable. At the last minute, the Parliament in the UK added a provision to its omnibus embryo bill--that among other things permits human/animal hybrid cloned embryos to be manufactured--that if the bill passes into law as expected, permits the DNA of people to be used to clone embryos without consent. From a column about the story:

How would you feel if your DNA were used without your permission to produce cloned human embryos for medical research? Regardless of whether it is right or wrong to experiment on human embryos, creating them would require either giving women high doses of drugs with unknown side effects to produce the large numbers of eggs needed for cloning research, or the placing of your genes inside cows' or pigs' eggs to produce human-animal hybrid embryos.

So you might well expect to be asked to give your explicit permission before such a morally fraught procedure is carried out using your tissue, but the government doesn't see the need for this. At virtually the last minute, ministers added amendments to the human fertilisation and embryology bill which will receive its final vote in the Commons today, that will allow researchers to use the DNA of tissue donated anonymously in the past to create cloned human embryos. Other amendments would permit the genes of children or of mentally incapacitated adults to be used in similar ways.

The UK's Parliament should have a slogan--what the scientists want, the scientists get. Not surprising in a country where its biomedical ethics are dominated by naked utilitarianism, such as the Orwellian-named National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), that pushes health care rationing, futile care theory, and etc. This is just the latest example.

Labels:

8 Comments:

At October 22, 2008 , Blogger Joshua said...

What's wrong with being cloned without consent?

I outlined my opinion on why this is not actually a problem on my blog: http://hplusbiopolitics.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/to-be-clone-without-consent/

In summary, I said this:

"The fact of the matter is that you have control over yourself and your identity, but not your genetic code. The human genome is a commons for all humanity, and each and every version of it belongs to nobody. The clone of you would not be you, nor is cloning doing anything to you or your rights, and so I see no grounds for complaint if you were to be cloned without your consent (or if your clone cloned themselves again without asking you, which amounts to the same thing anyway)."

 
At October 23, 2008 , Blogger Mike Matteson said...

I agree with Joshua. The human genome is not the sort of thing over which one can have rights.

 
At October 23, 2008 , Blogger the.joyful.one said...

Joshua: It sounds to me like you don't have anything against cloning, and therefore wouldn't mind being cloned - with or without your consent. However, a lot of people do have a big problem with cloning, and because of those beliefs would be very much adverse to having their DNA used - with or without their knowledge. Personally, I think this is the issue with cloning a person without their consent - they may hold ethical, religious or philosophical beliefs that would cause them to not want such a thing done with their DNA.

Matteson: Why don't you have rights over the very thing that made you look and in many ways act as you do? As a comparison, aren't women supposed to have "control over their bodies" when it comes to abortion? But, because cloning fits the same worldview as abortion does, the tables are switched - "you don't have control of the very thing that made your body the way it is, your DNA".

 
At October 24, 2008 , Blogger Joshua said...

"However, a lot of people [...] would be very much adverse to having their DNA used - with or without their knowledge"

Yes, but I'm trying to point out that being cloned without consent is not actually any more wrong than being cloned with your consent.

"Why don't you have rights over the very thing that made you look and in many ways act as you do?"

As an analogy, consider a book. You may own a copy of that book, and as such can do what you want with that book, but the publisher can print another book exactly like yours and they don't need to ask your permission.

Your body, likewise, belongs to you, but the right to build another such body is not yours - it is nobody's, because there is no 'publisher' who owns the genome. It is therefore common property of the human race.

 
At October 24, 2008 , Blogger the.joyful.one said...

"being cloned without consent is not actually any more wrong than being cloned with your consent"

"the right to build another such body is not yours - it is nobody's, because there is no 'publisher' who owns the genome."

The real question here is whether I have the the right to do as I like with my DNA. You said, "Your body, likewise, belongs to you" - why doesn't that include my DNA? You, obviously, don't care what someone does with your DNA. That's fine, it's yours. I do care what people do with my body, including my DNA - why doesn't that matter in this instance?

Concerning the "book" analogy, I see a large discrepancy. I don't own someone elses book, I own my book - I am the sole owner of this particular book, and no other book has ever been "written" that is exactly like it. Therefore, it is my perogative to decide whether I will allow someone to print another one because it is solely mine.

Honestly, I see the "cloned without consent" issue as being an attack on my freedom for the sake of furthering a particular agenda - an agenda that I don't agree with. There are evidently plenty of people who wouldn't mind donating DNA for cloning, why must the government mandate that anyone's DNA , regardlss of that persons views, can be used? I see it as pure political/philosiphical medeling.

 
At October 25, 2008 , Blogger Joshua said...

"I do care what people do with my body, including my DNA - why doesn't that matter in this instance?"

Nobody should be able to edit your DNA while it in your body. That's vandalism of your property. You do own the the DNA in your body, but you don't own the information within that DNA (that is, people can patent it or copy it without your consent).

"I don't own someone elses book, I own my book"

How can that be? Did you write that book? You can't claim intellectual property over something that was given to you by your parents.

Consider this thought experiment - Jack and Jim are identical twins, and Jim wants to donate his DNA to be cloned. Does Jim needs Jack's permission?

 
At October 25, 2008 , Blogger the.joyful.one said...

Ummm... the DNA is the information... if I own the DNA, I own the information.

"You can't claim intellectual property over something that was given to you by your parents."

I would like to note that the active word there is "given". It is mine, coming from my parents.

Now, I understand the point, despite the word-smithing, but still disagree. If I don't have the rights over my DNA, who does? If I donate it, fine. But those rights don't belong to the Government. I don't think that the Government should have the right to dictate that anyone can use my DNA either.

As to the twin thing. I happen to have twins for siblings. Although they aren't identical, I've learned some about twins along the way. I was never under the impression that their DNA is exactly the same. Can someone give me some info on that before I answer?

 
At October 26, 2008 , Blogger Joshua said...

As I'm arguing, and matteson agrees, nobody has rights over your DNA. It doesn't belong to anyone.

Consider other examples. Say you were born via IVF, and you learn later that an identical twin embryo exists frozen at the clinic. Your parents wish to implant this embryo too. Do they need your consent to have another child with DNA like yours?

And to answer your other questions, identical twins have similar DNA, but of course due to mutations their DNA is not identical at all places. But then, not all the DNA in each of your cells is identical either, for the same reason.

But I don't think this is relevant. If I copied an essay you wrote and changed a few words, it would still be plagiarism of your essay. For that matter, every human being on the planet was made with DNA that pretty much differs only in dialect and spelling - in a sense, every time a person has children they are creating a copy only slightly different from you.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home