Human Cloning. What are the ethical implications of cloning? Does it take away human nature and dignity? To clone or not to clone?

Authors Avatar

In the 20th century the possibility of human cloning was a subject of speculation even among the scientific community. However it wasn’t until the 1960s that cloning started to be taken seriously. Many scientists, including a Nobel Prize winning geneticist were suddenly taking interest in the once elusive theory that the human form could be cloned. This has sparked debate among many, especially those among the religious side. The debate only heated up when in 1996, scientists from Edinburgh successfully cloned the first mammal, dolly the sheep. As science continues to evolve we can assume it is only a matter of time before someone is able to clone an actual human being. This brings us to the frequently asked questions, What are the ethical implications of cloning? Does it take away human nature and dignity? To clone or not to clone?

Join now!

      To answer all those questions, we first have to explore cloning fully starting with the ethical implications. For example, human cloning can be good as it can be used to treat diseases such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes and also can be useful for people who need transplants. It can also help with reconstructive treatment for burn victims who get half their bodies burnt to an unrecognizable state. Instead of relying on donors, people could have organs just like that with no need for waiting lists or immunosuppressive drugs. On the other hand if we were ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

This essay is very well written, and generally is very accurate in terms of spelling and grammar. There are a few typing mistakes, e.g. ‘it would be the same for human cloning so they could be a lot of dead or dying babies’. Ensure that you proofread your work carefully before submitting it.

There is a lot which is good here, the candidate has considered many of the possible benefits of cloning, but has subsequently highlighted the risks and followed the argument that it contrary to human dignity. The candidate has employed several rhetorical devices successfully, such as rhetorical questions and emotive language, and included the views of ‘authorities’ such as the United Nations. However I feel that with further research the candidate could have presented a much better argument, for example, by showing the limits to the medical benefits of cloning, or including the views of experts in the field, or perhaps some statistical information. The candidate’s argument also focuses heavily on the question of human dignity and the Christian perspective; while this is of course valid, perhaps the candidate could have included the perspectives of other groups who oppose cloning – this makes the essay much more persuasive as it gives an impression of nuance and also that there is a broad spectrum of support for your point of view.

The candidate has a clear structure to their essay, and although s/he has addressed opinions on both side of the issue I feel there is a lot of room here for further reflection and expansion. The essay is quite short and while what has been included has merit, there is a lot more to be said on the topic, for example, the candidate has raised many of the ethical questions which arise around cloning, “On the other hand if we were to clone a human being would that clone have a brain or identity of its own? Would the clone be treated as another human with rights or would it just be considered a source for spare parts? Would we treat clones as part of our family or not?” but has not really made much effort to tackle them, instead focusing on cloning as a general concept.