From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 08:13:09 MST
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 ABlainey@aol.com wrote:
> Not at all. I am proposing that we make every effort to produce clones
> free from any defects and that we also except the Fact and simple
I agree. The simplest way to assert that cloning will produce a tolerable
rate of defective children is halt current cloning effects until
sufficiently debugged on animal model for first human trials.
> truth that defects can and will occur despite our best efforts. Not
> only that, but more importantly. The clones that are not perfect or
> far from it are still worthy of life.
Once they are born, yes. The point is not that, however. The point is that
our current actions will result in a highly probable outcome: normal or
defective. Given our current knowledge, there is a clear choice between
these two alternatives.
> I would tend to agree with your second point to overcome defects that
> are due to the process itself or predisposed genetic defects that can
> be corrected at the time of cloning. However I think it is inevitable
> that clones will be born with abnormalities. We cannot foresee every
Of course. Normal birth results in abnormalities. So let's use actual
numbers, computing probabilities. All decisions should be based on actual
data, not beliefs.
> possible detail that may cause a clone to have defects. These details
> do not only include our mastery of the Human Genome. Other factors
> such as the health of the mother, Physical, Chemical or biological
> trauma to the unborn clone and countless other things could result in
> a clone with defects. Nature has been splicing our genes for millions
Yes. With a given, known probability.
> of years and even when offspring are genetically fine, there can still
> be other problems. That is why it is inevitable that some clones will
> be born with defects. Substitute 'defect' for illness/pathology, etc.
> if that helps.
Little disagreement there. Let's look at the numbers. Given healthy
parents, we have to compare with normal birth. Given sterile parents, we
have to look at IVF defect rate (loosely defined, including spontaneous
aborts) for comparison. If we were to discuss something resulting in
actual policy we would have to gather enough data to compute probabilities
with sufficiently small error ranges.
> I think the dataset on the side of the clones is a little too small
> for a valid argument. I would say without hesitation that if had the
Not quite, if you factor in the low success rate. Otherwise I agree: wen
need statistically significant chimp data before we touch people.
> choice of being born through natural methods or cloning at present.
> I'd opt for the natural method. The current defect rate in cloning
> would seem to be incredibly high. This still doesn't remove the
Yes.
> natural problems of reproduction from the argument. It just helps
> highlight my previous point that defects can and will occur even if
> the actual cloning procedure is perfect. My statement says that the
Yes. Depending on motivation for cloning (because clearly there has to be
a point for it if we're looking at vanilla couples) the risks have to
outweigh the benefits.
> world is not black or white and that the possible outcomes of natural
> reproduction and cloning are very grey. Neither is perfect and the
> outcome of cloning is still reliant on the natural process of
> gestation.
Obviously.
> I don't quite follow you.
> Are you saying that me being either the cloning doctor or parent. If you were
> the clone and you were born with a defect that caused your life to be of such
> a low standard that you felt it wasn't worth living. Then you would sue me or
> worse?
Right.
> If so then I will try to clarify what I said. I personally believe
> that where we draw the line demarking what is and isn't worth living depends
> entirely on your personal beliefs. If I had an accident that paralysed me and
Right. On personal beliefs of those affected, which you cannot question in
advance because that person is not yet there. So clearly you can't ask for
consent, if confronted with making a choice between multiple alternatives,
associated with computable risks.
> left me on a ventilator, entirely dependent on others for survival. My life
> would still be worth living. Likewise if I were born with a similar
I don't know. I can't tell it in advance. You'll notice that a number of
people terminate their lives for no externally visible reasons. So clearly
there is a choice to make, and no one can make the choice but the person
affected.
> condition my life in my view would still be worth living. Arguments of
> Identity aside, there would still be a conscious chain of though that would
There are no relevant identity arguments I'm aware of. The matters are
really simple. The time of the decision is past already. You can only
apply feedback to the parties who made the decision according to your
subjective evaluation of said decision.
> exist. There would also be a Hope of improvement. If I had never existed,
Once you're there, the point is moot. But we're talking about the event
resulting in you, and the decisions associated with that.
> there would never be a conciseness or any hope of improvement. So as you can
> see, I set the line pretty damn low, I imagine that you may not.
Not really. You just lump two separate issues together, wheras I treat
them separately. This results in a different evaluation.
> In any case, a clone would have no more right to Sue than any person
> living today that has been born with deformities or ailments. If it was shown
Actually, the clone would have more rights to sue because there is no damn
reason why people should clone people. Unless explained, cloning looks
like a frivolous decision with the clone being the one winding up with the
bill for it. Doesn't look quite right, does it?
> that these were caused by or were knowingly not prevented by the doctors.
> Then of course a clone would have a right to sue, just as anyone has the
> right today.
Yes, and in fact more so.
> Please elaborate. Strawman is not something I am familiar with. If its
> a gibe at my response to the comedic scaremongouring that some idiots
> have raised against cloning. Then Yes I know I shouldn't lower the
> level of the thread to include such inane arguments.
It's a description of a type of argument where you ascribe to your
opponent obviously ludicrous beliefs she does not hold, and then tear them
down with a flourish, then claiming victory.
> Why would there be artificially produced defects? If you mean, defects
> resultant from the process then that is one thing. Defects that are produced
Yes.
> artificially would point to something different and more sinister.
No. You can decide to clone or not to clone. The decision to clone
resulting in defects whereas decision to not to clone resulting in no
defects clearly shows that cloning defects are artificial. They need not
be there. We put them there deliberately. Because we made a bad judgement,
or because we're actively evil.
> My suggestion to replace clone with Twin was purely as a response to
> the ridiculous arguments or fears such as Armies of clones. It was mearly
> meant to remove the unknown irrational fear element that the word Clone
> connotes and replace it with something of virtually equal meaning that
> laypeople are familiar with.
The substitution would have been valid, except cloning is a deliberate
process resulting in defects, whereas natural twins are the low-defect
result of a natural process largely outside of our control, currently.
> Doing what on purpose? When I say Twin I am of course referring to a
> genetically identical twin resultant of a division of the ovum into two
> genetically identical people. This Twin is greatly different in creation to
> the cloning of a living person. however the result is the same. Two
> genetically identical people. The clone is for argument sake, just a twin of
No. They are not genetically identical. You can tell them apart due to
their gene activity pattern. You can very easily tell them apart, because
one has visible defects, and the original is healthy. It's a bad xerox of
a twin, not a real twin.
> a living person that was created and born at a later time.
> I wouldn't go as far as to say that a clone of a twin is a triplet,
> but I may say that it is a twin of a twin. Could this not be considered
> correct? The point being that a Clone and a twin only differ in the method of
> creation. The result is the same.
No. The result is NOT the same. See above.
> The only exception to this I can see is where mitochondria are brought
> into the equation. It could be that a Clone could have different
> Mitochondrial DNA to the person that was the original. Even in this case, the
> essence of what makes the clone identical to the original e. g the genes,
> will be identical as in a twin.
Do not look at mitochondria. Look at the sick clone and the healthy
counterpart.
> Again, why would the clone be defective? What have civil rights of
The clone will be defective because the current process sucks. As you
know, different medical procedures result in vastly different outcomes. It
is very important to get it right. If you do it wrong, the results can be
disastrous, and typically are. Apparently tiny things gone wrong in a
procedure result in life and death, or worse.
> clones and twins and irrational fears of cloning got to do with the
> possibility of a clone having defects? The point was that a clone should and
> would have every civil right that a person of natural reproductive creation
> would have. As is the case with IVF.
Of course. But we were not discussing that.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST