CLONING: A MORAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS

Intellectual property is important in India at all statutory, administrative, and judicial levels. India has ratified the treaty that established the World Trade Organization. This agreement, which entered into force on January 1, 1995, includes, among other things, an agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. It establishes minimum standards for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in member countries in order to reduce distortions and impediments to international trade. Trips provided for the following areas of intellectual property copyrights and related rights, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, layout designs of integrated circuits, protection of undisclosed information, patents, and plant varieties.

THE ART OF HUMAN CLONING

While the ethics and legality of human cloning are murky, the science behind the concept is unmistakable, with all research indicating that the practise is feasible. Human embryos have already been cloned by scientists, and many believe that creating fully developed humans is the next step. Cloning refers to a set of procedures for producing genetically identical copies of a biological entity. Although these processes can occur naturally, such as in some plants and bacteria, the cloning that most people think of when they hear the word is the artificial reproduction of an entire animal. According to the National Institutes of Health, for this type of cloning, also known as reproductive cloning, scientists take a mature somatic cell (any type of cell other than a sperm or egg cell) from the animal they want to replicate. The desired DNA is then transferred into an egg of the same species whose own DNA has been removed. Most living things on Earth receive half of their DNA from their mother and half from their father, giving them an infinite number of genetic possibilities to create their offspring. Cloning uses DNA from only one organism, removing the element of chance from reproduction and producing offspring with an exact copy of the original DNA. The cloned egg is then allowed to mature into an early embryotic stage before being injected back into an adult female animal’s womb for gestation. The new born animal is officially known as a clone when it is born. A tadpole was the first animal to be cloned, in 1952. Dolly the sheep was the first mammal to be successfully cloned and born in 1996.

Human cloning is theoretically possible, but there is no record of a fully developed human ever being cloned, according to Live Science. Scientists have also created human clone embryos from the skin cells of infants and fully grown adults. However, none of these embryos were ever given the chance to fully develop.

Despite the fact that scientists are capable of cloning humans, it is highly unlikely that the procedure will ever be carried out for ethical reasons. Currently, cloned animals have poor health. Many people are born with abnormally large organs, which causes them to die prematurely or necessitates euthanasia. As a result of these factors, many scientists are opposed to even conducting research on the highly contentious subject.

IS IT RIGHT TO USE HUMAN CLONING FROM A MORAL POINT OF VIEW?

Human cloning is a method of reproduction, so the most important moral right at stake in its use is the right to reproductive freedom, also known as procreative liberty. Reproductive freedom includes not only the well-known right to choose not to reproduce, such as through contraception or abortion, but also the right to reproduce. The right to reproductive freedom is properly understood to include the use of various artificial reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilisation, oocyte donation, and so on. The reproductive right relevant to human cloning is a negative right, which means that it is a right to use assisted reproductive technologies without interference from the government or others when they are made available by a willing provider. The choice of an assisted reproductive method, such as surrogacy, can be defended as part of reproductive freedom, even if it is not the only way for individuals to reproduce, just as the choice between different methods of preventing conception is protected by reproductive freedom. It could be argued that human cloning is not covered by the right to reproductive freedom because, unlike current assisted reproductive technologies and practises covered by that right, which are remedies for inability to reproduce sexually, human cloning is an entirely new means of reproduction; indeed, its detractors see it as more of a means of manufacturing humans than of reproduction. Human cloning is a different type of reproduction than sexual reproduction, but it can serve an individual’s desire to reproduce. If it is not covered by the moral right to reproductive freedom, I believe it must be because it has other objectionable moral features, such as eroding human dignity or uniqueness, rather than because it is a new means of reproducing. The right to reproductive freedom is commonly understood to include the ability to choose the type of children one will have; for example, genetic testing of an embryo or foetus for genetic disease or abnormality, along with abortion of an affected embryo or foetus, are now used to avoid having a child with a genetic disease or abnormality.

BENEFITS OF CLONING

Human cloning would be a novel way to alleviate the infertility that some people are now experiencing. Human cloning would allow women who do not have eggs or males who do not have sperm to create biologically related children. Embryos may also be cloned, either by nuclear transfer or embryo splitting, to increase the number of embryos available for implantation and raise the likelihood of successful conception. While the moral right to reproductive freedom creates a presumption that individuals should be free to choose the means of reproduction that best serves their interests and desires, the benefits from human cloning to relieve infertility are greater the more persons there are who cannot overcome their infertility by any other means acceptable to them. I do not know of data on this point, but it should be possible to obtain or gather from national associations concerned with infertility. In such a case human cloning would be the best or only means of overcoming an individual’s infertility.

➢ Human cloning and research on human cloning may enable significant improvements in scientific understanding, such as on human development. While significant potential advancements in scientific or medical knowledge from human cloning or human cloning research have been often touted in certain media comments to Dolly’s cloning, these prospective advantages are very questionable for at least three reasons.

CONCLUSION

However, there are both positives and negatives. Human cloning has received little serious and rigorous ethical consideration up until this point since it has been rejected as science fiction, and it causes profound, but difficult to describe, anxiety and even disgust in many individuals. At this moment, any ethical appraisal of human cloning must be speculative and provisional. Fortunately, the science and technology of human cloning are not yet available, allowing for a public and professional discussion without the necessity for a fast, abrupt legislative reaction. As I understand it, the ethical merits and downsides of human cloning are sufficiently balanced and ambiguous that there is no morally conclusive argument either for or against legalising or doing it. Access to human cloning may be brought within the moral right to reproductive freedom, although the situations under which its usage would have considerable advantages appear to be uncommon and unusual at present moment. It is not a necessary component of a moral right to reproductive freedom, and it meets no significant or pressing individual or society needs.

The post CLONING: A MORAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS appeared first on The Daily Guardian.