Legal Ramifications of Human Cloning

Remove all ads!

So I have to write an essay on the legal ramifications of cloning, more specifically Canada. Since the topic was so broad, I narrowed it down, and ended up with this:

Now, here's my question for you guys. What do you think about this? Any advice you can give for me about an essay? Any books you can recommend I take a look at? (I need at least ten separate references, and only three can be from the internet). And finally what do you think should happen in regards to cloning laws?


And yes, I put this here in AoDA because I don't really think there are as much politics involved as there could be. Sure, It's about laws and law-making, but I'm not talking about one specific party. Feel free to move this if I've misjudged it.

 

Off the top of my head:

• There's a problem with establishing the parentage of a clone.
• There's always the which one is the real one problem
• Following the above, the problem of clones being subhuman and second rated citizens pops up -- certain rights of originals re identity are going to limit the rights of the clones beyond what a normal human gets, also rights of originals in clones (slavery of humans is illegal and clones are human)
• There's also the problem of cell aging and generally biological age with clones
• Inheritance problems: Does a clone get to inherit from the original's relatives? Or from the original?
• Liability extension problem: Is a clone responsible for the original's debts? What if someone creates a clone for the purpose of circumventing a rule or regulation?
• What with marriage, children custody and the like? Does a clone get to replace a deceased spouse or not? Any rights to the children who should theoretically be the clone's children as well, genetically, if the clone is a carbon copy?
• Criminal investigation problems: It's going to be even worse than with twins...
• What if a clone becomes involved in an identity theft scheme?
• Who has the right to okay a dead person's clone?
• Is it even consistent with human rights laws to expose a human being to all the stress and duress inflicted by being a clone of someone else? What if a clone decides to sue? Is the division between originals and clones constitutional in civilised countries?
• Support: Shouldn't originals be obligated to support clones in certain situations the same way it's with children or spouses?
• Cloning rights: Can you sell your cloning rights? Is consent always needed to clone someone? Can a clone clone himself without the consent of the original?
• Clones on territory where cloning prohibited: What then? Execution? What if someone goes to a country where cloning is allowed and comes back with a clone to his country where cloning is forbidden -- what happens with the clone?
• Incest or not: What if, let's say, a clone wants to marry his original's sister? Or the original to marry his clone's daughter? Incest or not?
• Clones with memories: Just think about the idea of putting a copy of the original's memory in the clone's head...

Conclusion: Ban the whole thing before it happens.

 

A few of those points are valid, chev, but some aren't. A clone grows like a normal human: fetus-> baby-> child etc., only it has the same genes as the original. It doesn't happen like just "making copies." Even if a clone is made exactly at the same time the original is conceived, they would have to have the exact same environment and circumstances to be *exactly* the same. The difference between a pair of identical twins, and a clone and an original, is rather small actually.

If a clone is given a different name and therefore identity than the original (as it should), it is a person of its own, and would be treated as such in legal matters, provided some method of conclusive identification is devised. And that is problematic.

Giving a clone the memories of the original sounds not only impossible, at least for some time yet, but also unethical, robbing the clone of an identity of its own. The distress of knowing you are a clone, the rights/consent of who gets cloned, and clones potentially getting a second-class citizen status are all valid points, I think.

All in all I am against cloning humans. I'm all for cell research and technology for medical purposes, but creating a sentient human entity can't be justified by the needs of science.

 

The difference between one-egg twins is already troublesome at times and I don't think allowing for even less difference is a good idea. In fact, I'm convinced it's a bad one.

So why the need to make a clone if it's totally separate? The whole incentive to make a clone comes from the fact it's a copy of someone already existing... Besides, the clone could still sue, the same way a person can sue for damage done to his mother during pregnancy if said damage affected him.

 

Well, I already said I'm against the idea too. I was just looking at a couple of the points that didn't seem to me as good as the rest. Carbon paper copy clones can't be made; that's the stuff of scifi or the movie "the 6th Day."

I would go as far as saying that's just number two on the motive list - the primary motive would be "because we can." Which to me seems even more unethical than cloning some great intellectual from the past for some specific task, although that might be attempted too if some powerhungy politician willing to abuse science and human rights gets to make the decision.

The scifi scare of creating a believable substitute for a deceased person would require the dead person's memories planted in the clone's mind. Seeing as clones don't just pop out as fully grown adults it would require duplicating the person's entire life for the clone to experience.

 

As far as references go reepnorp: http://books.google.co.in/print?q=human+clone+rights&oi=print
Check the The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Cloning for reasons why cloning primates (including humans) is impossible with current methods.

I don't think banning cloning will do a lot of good. There will always be countries where it might be performed.
A clone should have all the rights as the original's child imo. While genetically simila, legally the clone woulf be an heir.
Cloning can only be authorised by the original. However taking the samples required to enable cloning to be frozen can be done at any time with the authorisation of the original's parents.

 

Not necessarily. You could put in the clone's head memories of what the original experienced but not the clone himself. So he would remember doing things he hadn't really done. I think. I'm not an expert but that's how it was in Dune.

 

Hypothetically, yes. However remember how fiction tends to treat science. For a computer to store memories in a similar manner as the mind would require very advanced technology, not just a fast super computer, but a whole different way of handling data. I'm by no means saying it could never happen, but certainly not for a very long time.
-

There are a lot of things banned in some places yet *can* be done elsewhere. It doesn't mean banning them isn't a good idea or is no use. I don't think it's a good idea to give in to something as complicated and problematic as human cloning just because there will be places where it can be done. That would be like legalizing heroin because the junkies are going to find it anyway.

 

In Dune, it was probably memories stored along with simple genetic information. But later on, the memories needed a trigger, so it wasn't really scientific at that point.

Agreed.

 

Simply having someone else's memories won't make you that person. The biggest problem with your memory implanting idea currently Chev is how to actually get them.
We don't even know what parts of the brain store what information. How do emotions correlate to memories. What parts are conscious memory and which parts are unconscious/forgotten. How can training, specially physical training like dancing for example, be mastered simply by information transfer.

The idea that a clone will be exactly like the original is, presently, fictional and fallacious. Ofcourse in all probability that will be the most popular goal if and when human cloning becomes possible and legal definitions will be needed for that now.

 

Yes, clones differ. A little. But they are still copies, intended to be a copy and coming into existence for that purpose. The desire to have a copy is so selfish, immature and thoughtless that it's below the dignity of a human being as much as being a clone of someone else is.

 

@ Chevalier

You'd might want to add stupid, shortsighted and unnecessarily expensive to that list. The expensive part goes to the cloning itself, and then maintaining the clones life as needlessly long as possible, which would probably be the case.

Not to mention about the consequences if cloning would become a somewhat large trend. What a miserable life those clones would eventually have for their lack of adaptation against continually evolving parasites, viruses and bacteria.

 

Shrikant, you are a lifesaver! I've never even heard of Google books before! Even if I can't find enough books, I can use information from there to cite them, and make it look like I used them! And everyone, this is some quality opinions here. I wonder what my teacher would say about using internet message boards as a source for my essay?

 

Drop him the link. Maybe he wants to get pwned in the Alley, too?

 

I'm not touching this topic with a ten-foot pole. I can however, give you a reference book. It isn't on cloning per se, but rather how genes have difficulty being properly copied as they are "old" genes in clones. Here's the reference:

GENOME, by Matt Ridley, 1999.

A little dated, but it focuses on human DNA in particular, so it may be useful to you.

 

Oh God! Someone check out the Assisted Human Reproduction Act and tell me I don't need to redo the whole thesis! Or tell me that I do, and do so quickly, so I can start soon.

 

My big question with human cloning is why? I can't see why anyone would want a clone of themselves (or of anyone else) that would be missing the memories and skills of the person they were cloned from.

About the only reason I can think of why someone would make a clone would be for organ harvesting.

 

Assisted Human Reproduction Act
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/A-13.4/2389.html#rid-2398

I'll be damned before I read all of that.
At any rate this law is valid now but that does not mean that it is permanent. Laws have to be changed with changing reality.
This law simply states that everything that can't already be done is banned. It seeks to preclude or ward-off any experiments on humans themselves. Any experiments on human embryos, so long as they are not injected into a human female with the intent to deliver the foetus or child, do not seem to be covered by that law.

I'll read it later when it is not approaching 2 a.m.

 

Alrighty, I'm tweaking this a bit now to be more along the lines of wether the laws are constructive or destructive. And I just needed someone else to read up a bit on that 'cause I didn't want to have misinterpreted something! But oh well, it's significantly better that I found out now than later!

 

Megalomania?

Of course, people who would want a clone of themselves would likely want to be able to imprint their memories on the clone, and that's probably a good, long ways off.