Introduction
The issue of human cloning is surrounded by a plethora of controversies, both ethical and medical. For people, this subject can be a source of various dilemmas. Despite being a relatively slow-developing area, cloning still has the potential to irreversibly change society (Chadwick, 2018). Such changes could be implemented through reproductive cloning or through the use of cloned embryo cells in experimentation. The matter of embryo cloning creates a particular point of controversy, with various parties being concerned with the ethics of experimentation on cloned embryos’ (Rivron et al., 2018). Given that this subject is highly sensitive, one must thoroughly consider the part they might play in the development of this technology.
An example of a dilemma created by this technology is a case when a person needs to decide between their moral standing and monetary stability. In a hypothetical situation, a person is faced with a choice: they can provide an independent for-profit research facility with their genetic material or decline the opportunity. The problem, in this case, lies in the fact that this person has been laid off from work and is placed in a precarious financial position. The facility offers a substantial amount of money for this person’s material that they are planning to use in embryo cloning. The research that the person has done shows that embryo cloning does not go against their ethical stances. However, there are certain troublesome factors that prevent the person from making a concrete decision.
First, the person is required to sign a contract that stipulates their complete riddance of involvement in the material’s use. The clauses of the contract state that the establishment would be able to use the material as they would like, including projects outside of embryo experiments if need be. Second, in the process of research, the person discovered that the company was involved in a scandal in regard to selling medical data, which led to the CEO’s imprisonment. The doctor who had referred the person to the facility failed to mention these specifics. The new board of directors appears to be legitimate, and the person is required to feel financially supported while they are seeking the next place of employment. Third, the person’s close relatives are wary of the process itself, saying that this idea is unnatural and it bothers them. This point of view shows the inherent biases that permeate society’s outlook on cloning, which can come both from the media’s or religious institutes’ influence (Ogar et al., Vajta, 2018). Given the fact that a bias is not a healthy reasoning mechanism, the person does not give these notions serious consideration.
The Relevant Code of Ethics and Moral Conflict
The relevant code of ethics for this case is the AMA code for doctors. It specifically stipulates that the physician should practice honestly without withholding crucial information. In addition, the doctor should hold the patient’s best interest in mind when giving a recommendation; therefore, not disclosing the establishment’s previous misgivings could be considered a breach of the AMA code. Another conflict that this dilemma creates is the conflict between loyalty to self and the community or nation. If a person partakes in practices that could be unethical, they inadvertently condone these practices and help to spread and normalize them. The power of example by action cannot be overlooked, considering that the matter of cloning and its meaning for society is a relatively unexplored field (Häyry, 2018). The loyalty to self, however, dictates that the person in question should accept the opportunity since their quality of living and potential well-being could be at risk.
The most moral course of action for this person is not to accept the offer. Given that the company’s contract allows them to use the person’s genetic material as they please in the future, it opens a window for a plethora of possible unethical uses. If that is the case, the person would not be able to dispute their decision. Morally, this person’s responsibility is to ensure that their genetic material is not used unethically, for example, to harm people or create individuals without free will.
The Dilemma from Perspectives of Ethical Theories
If Aristotle’s Golden Mean were to be applied to this case, the person would be able to accept the preposition, but with certain stipulations. The philosophy of the Golden Mean states that one must pursue the path between two extremes. One extreme is absolute self-indulgence, and the other is complete self-restriction. When considering virtues, Aristotle stated that they should not be taken to extremes, for example, courage, which could be covert to recklessness (Rachels, 2003). In this dilemma, it would be self-indulgent to accept the offer without thinking. Self-restriction would be pronounced in refusing it. A middle ground here is to negotiate the clauses of the deal, opting to rid of the most questionable ones.
The ethics of utilitarianism would dictate not to accept the offer. The point of this set of ethics is the maximum happiness for the maximum number of people. Furthermore, it condemns the actions that lead to unhappiness or harm, aiming for the overall improvement of society. The movement of utilitarianism was established by J. Bentham, who created the Principle of Utility. This principle states that when making a decision, one must opt for the choice that has the most favorable consequence for all (Rachels, 2003). As has been stated above, there is a plethora of warning signals and detrimental consequences that surround the deal. If the person were to agree to it, they would set a precedent for other people to follow, ultimately creating an unsteady environment.
If Natural Law ethics were applied to this dilemma, the person would have to deny the proposition. The theory of Natural Law is the dominant path in Christian moral direction, which stems from the idea that rational order is built in the very nature of the world. These ethics dictate that solutions to ethical problems need to be rational and natural (Rachels, 2003). As the deal involves donating genetic material for purposes of cloning in laboratory settings, this idea would be rendered unnatural by this set of morals.
Ethically speaking, the best theory of these three is utilitarianism since it prevents the person from partaking in potentially harmful activity. The theory of Natural Law prohibits this as well; however, these reasons do not consider the good of society, but whether or not these actions are natural. In this case, the theory of utilitarianism provides a solution akin to the ethical solution provided earlier in this work, as it considers the benefit of society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, ethical dilemmas are serious matters that a person can meet in their day-to-day life. The provided moral dilemma, which concerns embryo cloning and its consequences, can be solved differently, depending on the set of ethics applied. Not all of these ethical theories yield the best moral results since their values and guidelines vary significantly. The most ethical solution, in this case, is to refuse the offer on the basis of its untrustworthy nature.
References
Chadwick R. (2018). Reproductive cloning revisited. Bioethics, 32(3), 146.
Häyry, M. (2018). Ethics and cloning. British Medical Bulletin, 128(1), 15–21.
Ogar, J. N., Idagu, U. A., & Bassey, S. A. (2018). Ethics in a technological society. Journal of Sustainable Society, 7(1), 1–4.
Rachels, J. (2003). The elements of moral philosophy. (4th ed.) McGraw Hill Higher Education.
Rivron, N., Pera, M., Rossant, J., Martinez Arias, A., Zernicka-Goetz, M., Fu, J.,… & Isasi, R. (2018). Debate ethics of embryo models from stem cells. Nature (564), 183–185.
Vajta G. (2018). Cloning: A sleeping beauty awaiting the kiss?. Cellular Reprogramming, 20(3), 145–156.