Morally misguided scientific paralysis (Bruce Fein, Washington Times, 4/16/2002)
Bruce Fein, the general counsel for the Center for Law and
Accountability, argues against a blanket ban on human embryo cloning
for research or reproductive purposes. In doing so, he employs the following analogy:
Suppose
a child, a middle-aged married female, and an elderly man are adrift on
a raft. All will starve before reaching shore unless one is
cannibalized. Their lives have been equally irreproachable. Doesn't
morality dictate killing the man in his sunset hours to save the infant
and spouse with exciting long years ahead instead of letting all three
perish? Doesn't the life-giving end justify the homicidal means,
analogous to the right to kill in self-defense or defense of another?
I
was initially going to say that this was a stupid fact situation. But
instead, I think it's just a stupid conclusion. No, morality does not
dictate killing the man to save the others. The means do not justify
the ends. The murder is unjustified. Any number of things could happen
that would have made the killing of the man unnecessary, with the most
likely their being rescued before they reach shore.
In any case, morality dictates that one of them should sacrifice
themselves to save the other two. Obviously, the infant wouldn't have
the mental capacity to grasp the situation, leaving either the woman or
the man to sacrifice themselves. In no case, however, should 2 of the 3
decide to kill the other without that person's consent. That person has
as much of a right to live as the other three. The key point is that
someone must voluntarily
sacrifice their life. In the case of an embryo destroyed for research
purposes (which is the case of embryos that would be cloned for
research), the embryo has not made a voluntary decision to be destroyed.
Some people find it easy to justify destroying embryos because they
rationalize that an embryo isn't really a person. They haven't been
born, we can't talk to them, etc. But there is no doubt that an embryo
is a lifeform. And there is further no doubt that that lifeform is
human in nature. There is no way around that fact.
In fact, the fact situation made up by Bruce Fein actually happened. My
first year criminal law class discussed it. The case is called Regina v. Dudley and Stephens.
It's an older case, and I seem to remember it being a British case, but
I can't remember at the moment. The court in that case upheld the
defendants' convictions for murder. To paraphrase the court (taken from
my notes), someone should have sacrificed themselves to save the others
or accept the consequences instead of three of the men deciding to kill
the weaker fourth one.
Meanwhile, Benjamin Domenech had a good post on cloning last night dealing with libertarian support of it.