1

Therapeutic Cloning Can Expand the Scope of Healthcare

By Gabriel Chagolla

Most everyone knows someone,

whether it be a relative or family friend,

who, at one point or another, has had

medical issues that involve the need of an

organ transplant. But, how many of us know

someone who has successfully been selected

for an organ transplant? The U.S.

Department of Health & Human Services

reports, “120,042 people need a lifesaving

organ. Of those, 77,411 people are active

waiting list candidates. On average, 22

people die each day while waiting for a

transplant.” As unfortunate a circumstance

as that is, advancements in technology now

offer alternative methods for individuals to

receive functioning organs without the cost

of someone’s life, consequentially

shortening the waiting list and increasing the

amount of lives saved: therapeutic cloning.

The amount of welfare that can be

produced through therapeutic cloning has

had many rethinking their position on the

issue. There are many applications of

therapeutic cloning in healthcare; the use of

it as a source for organs has the most

support. Although many people feel it

decreases the value of human life,

therapeutic cloning in healthcare should not

http://www.commonwealthfund.org

2

be banned because it positively impacts the

longevity and improvement of human life.

THE MORALITY QUESTION

The claim that therapeutic cloning is

ethically wrong is being revisited in greater

depth as technology advances. Many people

fear that uplifting the ban on the cloning of

humans will irreversibly dampen the value

of human life, and lead humanity down a

road in which there are no U-turns. The

Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity

states, “Human cloning for any purpose

opens the door to a ‘Brave New World,’ and

we must shut that door now.” It will

“critically diminish society… in the name of

autonomy and utilitarianism.” By cloning

humans, people believe therapeutic cloning

is not worth doing so just because the

technology is able to and want to for the

“greater good.” They feel that decreasing the

value of human life trumps any good that

could come from it. To go further, does it

decrease the value of human life by creating

a viable embryo as a source for stem cells in

order to grow organs and tissues that can

help the individual in need? These

individuals would argue that it certainly

reduces the value while also terminating the

embryo’s potential for life. However, this

claim is insufficient in that there is already

strong consideration for the aspects of

cloning that threaten the value of human life.

For example, Walter Glannon, philosophy

expert holding the Canada Research Chair in

Biomedical Ethics and Ethical Theory at the

University of Calgary in Alberta,

demonstrates in his article, “The Ethics of

Human Cloning,” the ethical concerns

surrounding the notion of cloning humans.

Glannon clarifies, “It is worth emphasizing

that the National Bioethics Advisory

Committee, while recommending a ban on

cloning human beings, did not also

recommend that research be restricted on the

cloning of human cells for the purpose of

3

producing tissues, organs and bones”

(Glannon 295). Glannon goes on to mention

that the reason this is significant is because

by cloning these part of humans, which are

not essentially identical with humans and

have no intrinsic moral status of their own,

any disturbing ethical implications are

effectively sidestepped (Glannon 295).

Essentially, the author points out that the

National Bioethics Advisory Committee

does not believe that there should be a ban

on all human cloning research as so long as

it aims to improve human health. He

suggests that all ethical concerns are

eliminated if human cloning is performed

only on the parts of humans, such as skin

tissue, a liver or perhaps a femur, that would

otherwise hold no moral standing on their

own. He further asserts that the ultimate goal

of therapeutic cloning is not to clone a

human being to prove the sophistication of

science but rather to meet the demand of

those in need of lifesaving organs. In

response to the embryo’s potential for life,

the embryo created in therapeutic cloning

never has potential for life because it is

never inside a host’s body to begin with.

MEETING THE DEMAND

The demand for available organs

continues to be a struggle for healthcare

providers. According to the Organ

Procurement and Transplantation Network,

“Despite advances in medicine and

technology, and increased awareness of

organ donation and transplantation, the gap

between supply and demand continues to

widen.” Regardless of overwhelming efforts

to address the shortage of organs, it is

apparent that a new source to accessible

organs must be implemented.

4

https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/ The graph shows how the gap between supply and demand for organs continues to increase.

The graph above indicates the continuous

rise of people in the United States that are in

need of a life saving organ, but are sadly

“left out in the cold” with no alternative to

turn to. It also seems to suggest there is no

reason to believe that this gap will ever

decrease; rather it is an inevitable part of

healthcare because there is no practical

method to accomplish this task, but there is.

And because of this method, millions of

people will have access to life saving organs

developed using their own DNA.

PRACTICAL METHODS

Therapeutic cloning technology is

capable of producing new organs using two

methods: cell mass division and somatic cell

nuclear transfer (SCNT). First, cell mass

division accomplishes its purpose by

splitting an early multi-celled embryo in

order to create two identical embryos

(weebly.com). In John Harris’ article,

“"Goodbye Dolly?" The Ethics of Human

Cloning,” he discusses the uses and abuses

of human cloning with the intent of

analyzing its ethical aspects. He states,

“Although the technique of cloning embryos

by cell mass division has, for some time

been used extensively in animal models, it

was used as a way of multiplying human

embryos for the first time in October 1993

when Jerry Hall and Robert Stillman at

George Washington Medical Centre cloned

human embryos by splitting early two- to

eight-cell embryos into single embryo cells”

(Harris 353). This is evidence cell mass

division could be a viable method that is

applicable to humans. Not to mention, the

technology and method have vastly

improved since 1993.

Second, the somatic cell nuclear

transfer technique has shown to be effective

in creating a viable embryo from a body cell

and an egg cell; the intent of this is to have a

5

source of stem cells that can be used for

therapeutic cloning. SCNT involves taking

an enucleated egg cell (egg cell that has had

its nucleus removed) and implanting a donor

nucleus from a body cell (Wikipedia.org).

The technique can readily be applied to

therapeutic cloning as it has shown to be an

effective method in the cloning of “Dolly

the Sheep.” This famous sheep was the first

animal to be successfully cloned by the

SCNT technique. Similarly, in Jose B.

Cibelli’s “The First Human Cloned

Embryo,” he explains his therapeutic

cloning experiments are focused on

generating cloned human embryos in order

to yield stem cells. He writes, “We intended

to isolate human stem cells from the

blastocysts to serve as the starter stock for

growing replacement nerve, muscle and

other tissues” (Cibelli 1). In SCNT,

scientists use an extremely fine needle to

suck the genetic material from a mature egg.

They then inject the nucleus of the donor

cell (or sometimes a whole cell) into the

enucleated egg and incubate it under special

conditions that prompt it to divide and grow.

The success this technology has shown in

accomplishing this task dismisses any

skepticism that it does not yield any “real”

results.

Likewise, Wikipedia states, “The

resulting cells would be genetically identical

to the somatic cell donor, thus avoiding any

complications from immune system

rejection.” The new organ will be linked

specifically to the patient in need using their

own DNA to avoid any problems when

integrating it into the patient’s body. These

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/The image depicts the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) method removing the genetic material from a mature egg.

6

cloning methods could address the need for

organs, and, thus, significantly benefit

people and change healthcare for the better,

which is why therapeutic cloning should be

implemented.

BENEFICENCE

The amount of welfare that can be

achieved through attainable organs by

therapeutic cloning is the single most

concrete reason to uplift the ban. According

to Simon Smith’s article, “The Benefits of

Human Cloning,” he asserts, “Embryonic

stem cells can be grown to produce organs

or tissues to repair or replace damaged

ones. Skin for burn victims, brain cells for

the brain damaged, spinal cord cells for

quadriplegics and paraplegics, hearts, lungs,

livers, and kidneys could be produced …

and other problems may be made curable if

human cloning and its technology are not

banned.” The writer highlights the variety of

organs that therapeutic cloning could supply

those in need. He argues the benefits are too

impactful to be denied. Similarly, according

to Health Research Funding, “The

advantages of cloning are also quite

apparent: human cloning could very well

lead to faster medical cures, a better overall

quality of life, and even longer life spans.”

The organs could provide longevity and

improve human health in ways that will

radically impact humans forever.

Many people are understandably

cautious when it comes to the moral

boundaries of modern advances in science.

However, the demand for organs prompts

the need for an innovative source that

escapes the most important ethical concern,

has practical methods, and whose aim is to

provide longevity and drastically improve

human health. Because therapeutic cloning

in healthcare can address the shortage of

organs by producing organs to replace

damaged ones, it should not banned since its

aim is to improve human health and is not

7

ethically wrong. Moreover, the solution to a

vital part of human health is finally within

grasp and it is imperative that actions must

be taken, which in turn will expand the

scope of healthcare beyond what was

thought to be possible.

8

Works Cited

"Cell Mass Division." The Ethics on the Cloning of Human Cells through the Implication of Stem

Cells. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016.

Cibelli, Jose B. "The First Human Cloned Embryo." Scientific American. N.p., 21 Feb. 2002.

Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

Glannon, Walter. "The Ethics of Human Cloning." Public Affairs Quarterly 12.3 (1998): 287-

305. Web.

Harris, John. ""Goodbye Dolly?" The Ethics of Human Cloning." Journal of Medical Ethics 23.6

(1997): 353-60. Web.

"High Health Care Costs in the U.S. Explained." - The Commonwealth Fund. N.p., n.d. Web. 09

Nov. 2016.

"Journal of Medical Ethics." - BMJ Journals. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016.

Knapton, Sarah. "Breakthrough in Human Cloning Offers New Transplant Hope." The

Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016.

"Organ Cloning." RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016.

"Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network." OPTN: Organ Procurement and

Transplantation Network. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, n.d. Web. 29

Oct. 2016.

Smith, Simon. "The Benefits of Human Cloning." The Benefits of Human Cloning. Human

Cloning Foundation, 2002. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.

"Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

Weebly. “The pros and cons of therapeutic cloning.” Human Cloning, n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2016.

"Why Human Cloning Must Be Banned Now | The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity."

9

Why Human Cloning Must Be Banned Now | The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity.

N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Nov. 2016.

Wpadmin. "Pros and Cons of Human Cloning - HRFnd." HRFnd. N.p., 2016. Web. 18 Oct.

2016.