This article seeks to identify certain differences between the past and present in terms of biomedical science and technology so as to show that cloning is possible.

Response to scientific and technological developments› 1960 - 1970s:

People were wary of technology. Technology is the downfall of a society.

› Present: Less resistance towards biomedical technology People are more supportive.

› Conclusion: Judging from the support for biomedical

technology, acceptance for cloning comes with the recognition of potential benefits and profits.

Reproductive rights› 1960 - 1970s:

Rights to reproduction are exercised

› Present: Rights to procreation are exercised Based on personal choice

› Conclusion: Cloning should be accepted since

procreation is a right belonging to individuals.

Infertility relief and research possibilities People should turn to cloning to:

› help couples where both carry lethal recessive genes› procreate a child with the cells of a deceased husband› save a life of a child who requires a bone marrow transplant.

1960 - 1970s: › Treated these reasons less seriously. › Infertility was to be accepted as a fact of life.

Present: › Treat these reasons more seriously. › Infertility seen as a threat to personal happiness and must be

eradicated. Conclusion:

› With the increasing dissent over infertility, if there was a possibility of having a child through cloning, most people would support cloning.

This article discusses the views of the proposition and opposition with regards to stem cell research.

1. Embryos are human beings with the same rights.

2. Life starts at the moment of conception

3. Life starts at the moment of conception

4. Destruction of an embryo is the destruction of a human life.

6. Anti-abortion groups also oppose stem cells research from the aborted fetuses.

7. It's an assault of doing research on innocent human life in the womb.

8. Leads to a lot of related evils such as euthanasia, infanticide, and the creation for research purpose of human embryos.

Some critics support the research on aborted fetuses since the fetuses are already dead, but they oppose the destruction of embryos since the embryos might be alive.

Many ethicists and scientists also oppose embryonic research.

It is said that adult stem cells may be more versatile than previously thought, so it may soon be able to drive stem cells from adults.

1. The week-old blastcysts are not human beings. so destroying those embryos does not constitute killing.

2. Embryos are merely a cluster of cells.

3. Most scientists argue that an embryo is not a person until it is at least two weeks old.

4. A lot of religious groups support embryonic stem cell research, they also do not consider a young embryo to be a human being.

5. The potential medical benefits of the research outweigh moral concerns about the embryo.

6. A ban might cut off scientific opportunities "to those most qualified to make dramatic advances towards using stem cells for the treatment of disease,"

7. That federal involvement would increase the pool of talented scientists who could study the cells, and thus accelerate the pace of the research.

Writer agrees stem cells have huge potential

Stem cells gaining more support

Many breakthroughs

Celebrities support stem cell research

However, problems with embryonic stem cell research

Problems covered up?

Mainly against embryotic stem cell research

There are beneficial effects of stem cells.

Ethicists: Stem cells may not work well.

Embryonic stem cells: Exchanging lives for nothing

Writer: Agrees that results from e.s.c. are mixed

However, adult stem cells that require no killing are proven effective

Unrestricted embryonic stem cell research:

Humans as property for trade instead of lives?

Laments how successful attempts at a.s.c. more published than unsuccessful e.s.c. research

This article mainly seeks to uncover the fundamental principles of bioethics.

The 2 fundamental principles are as such:› The essence of the medical field is to have human

beings help other human beings, not because of fame or wealth, but because of an intrinsic desire to help

› On the part of the patients, they have the responsibility to seek for the "enlightened" physician for treatment, for this is part of an ethical duty to themselves.

Before doing so, the article defined the terms physicians and patients as such:

Physicians: Refers not only those who stand by the patient's bedside administrating cure directly, but also scientists, researchers who help in the development in medicine, treatment etc.

Patients: Refers not only to those who are receiving direct treatment, but also those who are being prepared or researched upon (potentially everyone)

1. The essence of the medical field is to have human beings help other human beings, not because of fame or wealth, but because of an intrinsic desire to help.

2. On the part of the patients, they have the responsibility to seek for the "enlightened" physician for treatment, for this is part of an ethical duty to themselves.

Supported by a variety of historical teachings by ancient physicians:

Hippocrates wrote "I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice."

Gong Tingxian also stated: Doctors should "adopt a disposition of humaneness: this is a justified demand. They should make a very special effort to assist the people and to perform far-reaching good deeds."

Supported by Gong Tingxian's maxims directed to patients› Patients should "choose 'enlightened

physicians' and thereby receive help in their ailment. They have to be careful, because life and death follow each other closely."

Despite the advancements in the medical field through, these are the fundamental principles that never change, and are really the very essence in the study of medicine.