Guest Blogger Rita Joseph went to the Senate Committee hearings into the Patterson cloning Bill... She argues that pro-cloning scientists exhibit all the self-willed passion and moral immaturity of six-year-olds.
After World War II, Omar Bradley predicted an age of “technological giants and moral pygmies”. True enough: a bunch of scientists today are employing some very stunted moral reasoning in their demand to clone human beings and use these embryonic human beings in lethal research.
When it comes to morality, cloning advocates are arguing like six-year-olds.
Having raised eleven children, I know quite a bit about six-year-olds, their wilful egotism, their flawed reasoning… I know all about their tantrums when they want badly to do something that they are utterly convinced will bring great happiness for themselves and their friends even though it will harm others who, in their eyes, don’t matter.[1]
Yes, these scientists sound very like six-year-olds when told “No, you may not do that”. When they wheedle Parliamentarians for permission, like obstinate children hell-bent on a dangerous new project, they play down the dangers and hype up the alleged benefits.
When told they must abide by that first principle of medical ethics “first do no harm”, they reply with classic “But Mummy…” rationalizations.
You may not harm others, I say, especially the little ones younger than you.
“But Mummy” they reply, “we have to. It is the only way. This is very important, Mummy…”[2]
Yes, darling. But there are other ways. Many good things are being discovered and developed right now, good things that don’t need us to do bad things to other human beings.
But Mummy we only want to harm a very small number of the very smallest kids—no one wants them—they won’t feel a thing—they’re not like us…[3]
No, dear, every single human being is like us, big or small, wanted or unwanted, whether they can feel or not feel. Just being human gives each one of them the same human rights as you and me. This important moral principl was agreed a long time ago. “All human beings are equal in dignity and rights.”
But Mummy it’s only so we can help heaps of other kids who are our friends, kids in wheel chairs, kids with …[4]
No, no. You may not harm some human beings in order to help others. This is another law that all good people agreed long long ago —“The end doesn’t justify the means.”
But Mummy we can get hundreds and hundreds of Very Important People to say that this can be done, that it will truly help our friends…
No darling; no matter how many people you can get to say that it can be done; it is whether it should be done that is the problem. No matter how much good you think it will do the kids you know, it’s still not right to harm little kids you don’t know.
But Mummy, it’s good to help our friends; surely it’s wrong not to do this for them…[5]
Well, you should do everything you can to help your friends, everything except deliberately doing something bad like hurting others much smaller than you and with no Mummy or Daddy to protect them. Remember the littlest kids with no friends have the same right to be helped as the biggest kids with heaps of friends.
But Mummy, what if the good things we can do from harming just a few of these littlest kids is going to make everything heaps better for millions across the whole wide world?[6]
No, my dear, not even then. Once we begin to “use” one human being to “save” other human beings, we are abusing human rights. “You may not do evil even that good may come of it”—another moral principle that good people have agreed for a long time.
But Mummy everybody else is doing it….[7]
No, everybody else is not doing it. Except for a handful of reckless hotheads, everybody else has agreed not to do this bad thing.
But Mummy, the others are going to get in front of us. It’s so unfair, Mummy. You’re making us lose the race.[8]
No, darling, we should not think of this as a race. We have to think about very serious things like this very carefully. It would be wrong to go hurtling down the road running over lots of the littlest ones along the way just because some big people want to be first.
But Mummy it’s not fair! If they can help their friends, why can’t we help ours?
Because there is a much more important kind of help that we must keep in place—not just for our friends but for everyone. In the long run, it is much more important to keep our part of the world working with fairness for everyone. Our moral principles must continue to protect every person, always and everywhere, no matter how young or old, or slow, or poor or unwanted. It is much better that we keep everyone safe, everyone who is sick, everyone in wheel chairs, our littlest human beings and oldest grandmas and grandpas. Everyone must be protected from being harmed or being used to make other people better off.
But Mummy if you don’t let me do what I want, I’ll run away from home. I’ll go to Jack and Jill’s home—their Mummy will let them do it. [9]
That’s fine—go right ahead. But listen to me carefully—no matter what harm other people are allowed to do to smaller ones in other homes—while you’re here in this home, you will live by our rules and our principles.
“But Mummy….”
That’s enough ‘But Mummy’s’. Go and wash your hands and get ready for dinner!
After World War II, Omar Bradley predicted an age of “technological giants and moral pygmies”. True enough: a bunch of scientists today are employing some very stunted moral reasoning in their demand to clone human beings and use these embryonic human beings in lethal research.
When it comes to morality, cloning advocates are arguing like six-year-olds.
Having raised eleven children, I know quite a bit about six-year-olds, their wilful egotism, their flawed reasoning… I know all about their tantrums when they want badly to do something that they are utterly convinced will bring great happiness for themselves and their friends even though it will harm others who, in their eyes, don’t matter.[1]
Yes, these scientists sound very like six-year-olds when told “No, you may not do that”. When they wheedle Parliamentarians for permission, like obstinate children hell-bent on a dangerous new project, they play down the dangers and hype up the alleged benefits.
When told they must abide by that first principle of medical ethics “first do no harm”, they reply with classic “But Mummy…” rationalizations.
You may not harm others, I say, especially the little ones younger than you.
“But Mummy” they reply, “we have to. It is the only way. This is very important, Mummy…”[2]
Yes, darling. But there are other ways. Many good things are being discovered and developed right now, good things that don’t need us to do bad things to other human beings.
But Mummy we only want to harm a very small number of the very smallest kids—no one wants them—they won’t feel a thing—they’re not like us…[3]
No, dear, every single human being is like us, big or small, wanted or unwanted, whether they can feel or not feel. Just being human gives each one of them the same human rights as you and me. This important moral principl was agreed a long time ago. “All human beings are equal in dignity and rights.”
But Mummy it’s only so we can help heaps of other kids who are our friends, kids in wheel chairs, kids with …[4]
No, no. You may not harm some human beings in order to help others. This is another law that all good people agreed long long ago —“The end doesn’t justify the means.”
But Mummy we can get hundreds and hundreds of Very Important People to say that this can be done, that it will truly help our friends…
No darling; no matter how many people you can get to say that it can be done; it is whether it should be done that is the problem. No matter how much good you think it will do the kids you know, it’s still not right to harm little kids you don’t know.
But Mummy, it’s good to help our friends; surely it’s wrong not to do this for them…[5]
Well, you should do everything you can to help your friends, everything except deliberately doing something bad like hurting others much smaller than you and with no Mummy or Daddy to protect them. Remember the littlest kids with no friends have the same right to be helped as the biggest kids with heaps of friends.
But Mummy, what if the good things we can do from harming just a few of these littlest kids is going to make everything heaps better for millions across the whole wide world?[6]
No, my dear, not even then. Once we begin to “use” one human being to “save” other human beings, we are abusing human rights. “You may not do evil even that good may come of it”—another moral principle that good people have agreed for a long time.
But Mummy everybody else is doing it….[7]
No, everybody else is not doing it. Except for a handful of reckless hotheads, everybody else has agreed not to do this bad thing.
But Mummy, the others are going to get in front of us. It’s so unfair, Mummy. You’re making us lose the race.[8]
No, darling, we should not think of this as a race. We have to think about very serious things like this very carefully. It would be wrong to go hurtling down the road running over lots of the littlest ones along the way just because some big people want to be first.
But Mummy it’s not fair! If they can help their friends, why can’t we help ours?
Because there is a much more important kind of help that we must keep in place—not just for our friends but for everyone. In the long run, it is much more important to keep our part of the world working with fairness for everyone. Our moral principles must continue to protect every person, always and everywhere, no matter how young or old, or slow, or poor or unwanted. It is much better that we keep everyone safe, everyone who is sick, everyone in wheel chairs, our littlest human beings and oldest grandmas and grandpas. Everyone must be protected from being harmed or being used to make other people better off.
But Mummy if you don’t let me do what I want, I’ll run away from home. I’ll go to Jack and Jill’s home—their Mummy will let them do it. [9]
That’s fine—go right ahead. But listen to me carefully—no matter what harm other people are allowed to do to smaller ones in other homes—while you’re here in this home, you will live by our rules and our principles.
“But Mummy….”
That’s enough ‘But Mummy’s’. Go and wash your hands and get ready for dinner!
[1] Those who insist that cloned human embryos don’t matter deny the scientific and metaphysical truth that every human embryo is an embryonic human being, entitled by the very fact of being human to recognition of the dignity and worth that belong inherently to all members of the human family.
[2] Professor Alan Trounson, of Melbourne's Monash University, says therapeutic cloning should be allowed in Australia because it is the only way to get embryonic stem cells with a specific disease that can be studied as the condition progresses in the laboratory."This is a very important new approach," Trounson says.
The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/news/general/the-cell-division/2005/09/29/1127804607919.html) September 30, 2005 (All the quotes below are from this article “The Cell Division”.)
[3] “…embryos only have a significance when people want to use them to have a child. When they are created only for the purpose of research, they no longer have the same status", Professor Julian Savulescu, director of the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford University
[4] Caption under photo (two people in wheelchairs) by Pat Scala: Pressing for change: Dr Paul Brock (left) James Shepherd and Joanna Knott argue that each of them would benefit from therapeutic cloning.
[5] “It would be immoral not to lift the ban [on cloning], argues the Australian ethicist Professor Julian Savulescu, director of the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford University.”
[6] "This could save millions of lives." argues the Australian ethicist Professor Julian Savulescu, director of the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford University
[7] “It is permitted in many countries, including Britain, South Korea, Singapore and Sweden.”
[These are rogue states who have reneged on the recent United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning in which the international community solemnly agreed “to protect adequately human life in the application of life sciences” and to “prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life”.]
[8] “Science is like a horse race. The winner can’t be predicted beforehand. You have to let the horses run.”
Professor Julian Savulescu
[9] Dr Kuldip Sidhu, a stem cell researcher at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney, says "We've got to be in the race. We don't want a brain drain because of the legislation." Already one of the nation's leading stem cell researchers, Professor Martin Pera, of the Australian Stem Cell Centre in Melbourne, has said he will consider moving to another country if the ban is not lifted because his research would be compromised relative to colleagues overseas.
No comments:
Post a Comment