The AMA has endorsed cloning for research purposes, describing it as ethical. While it certainly is legal, I doubt very seriously that it can be described as ethical. And if it is, then cloning for reproduction is just as ethical.
Specifically, what the AMA has endorsed is cloning embryos to harvest their stem cells. Those stem cells are then encouraged to grow, in the hopes that they can be used in therapies for a myriad of degenerative diseases. At the same time, the AMA rejects cloning for reproduction as unethical, given the risks of the process, the high chances of producing defective fetuses, and the moral implications which arise once the clone is born and becomes a legal person. This gives rise to the odd notion that cloning is OK as long as you kill the clone prior to birth.
Opponents object to the process because they consider the embryo as a human organism, and reject the notion of creating a life to harvest its cells. They also point out that there are other alternatives for ESC, including umbilical blood and autologous adult stem cells, that have already proven their efficacy, and are being used successfully. Ironically, there have been no successful ESC therapies developed, yet the medical community holds out great hope for the future.
So here's my question: We already have evidence that adult stem cells can differentiate into multiple tissue types, just as ESC do. We also know that once differentiated, ASC show significantly more stability, resulting in fewer tumors. We also have empirical evidence that therapies based on ASC work, and work well. We also know that ASC can be isolated from the patient, eliminating all rejection and immune issues.
Why then are some pushing so hard for ESC research?
Posted by Rich at June 17, 2003 3:05 PM | TrackBack