Why Haven't We Heard the Sky Is Falling?

When Oregon passed The Death with Dignity Act (Act) in 1997 legalizing physician-assisted suicide, the country—from coast to coast—engaged in heated debate.1 Although such debate is useful and vitally necessary, none of the slippery-slope arguments depicting Dr Death, the rush to put Granny out of her misery for the inheritance, etc have come to fruition. In practice, fewer people have availed themselves of the option than even the conservative estimates of the Act's supporters. The vast geriatric population of Florida has not migrated to Oregon. There has not been a run on pied-à-terres in Portland to meet residency requirements. To the chagrin of all the Chicken Littles, there is thankfully no grease on the physician-assisted suicide slope. Similarly, when Dolly the sheep was introduced to the world by embryologist Dr Ian Wilmut in February 1997, virtually the entire world pronounced passionate, disparate opinions on “cloning.”2 For sure, the Chicken Littles warned, there was plenty of grease on the cloning slippery slope, and many governments heeding the warning sprang into action passing laws or establishing edicts decrying human cloning and other potential uses of the technology. In the United States, the Clinton Administration called for a voluntary ban on cloning in general, and presently, the Bush Administration prohibits the use of federal funding of reproductive and therapeutic cloning, absent employing a few established cell lines generally heralded as useless by the scientific community. Despite the outlandish claims of the Ralians, Italian doctors, and the narcissistically unscrupulous, the Boys From Brazil are not sliding down the cloning slippery slope. However, although inflammatory omens and fear of the unknown initially helped many countries and scientists keep their footing and take baby steps with respect to this potentially revolutionary technology, the inflammation has subsided and the fears apparently have been quelled. For example, in May, the United States House of Representatives approved (238 to 194) House Resolution 810, which would loosen restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 sponsored by Rep Michael Castle (R-Del) and almost 200 cosponsors would expand federal funding to embryonic stem cell research and allow research that uses stem cells derived from embryos originally created for fertility treatments that are willingly donated by patients. The bill does not allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on stem cell lines or embryos created expressly for research purposes. The Senate is paused to vote on an almost identical bill that recently has been gaining support and is likely to by approved. President Bush opposes both bills and has threatened to veto any similar measure, but despite his strong proclamation and his parade on the White House lawn of children born from adopted embryos, there have been few headlines. Similarly, although announced just days after a South Korean research team reported their success in cloning a human embryo and extracting a stem cell line, the news that Dr Wilmut was granted a license by Great Britain's Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority to clone embryos created from donated eggs and skin cells of patients with motor neuron disease and to cull stem cell colonies for the study of human disease, there has been barely a whisper of concern or opposition from the Chicken Littles. But should there be? There are legitimate and articulate moral arguments against both reproductive and therapeutic human cloning, especially for those who adhere to the premise that a new human life begins at the joining of egg and sperm. The most significant moral conflict stems from an ethically imperative mandate of respect for individual human life and the total unreliability of the technique. It took Dr Wilmut 276 tries before his success with Dolly. There is enormous potential for fetal death and egregious deformity. Furthermore, the destructive psychological and physical effects on a “mother” carrying and birthing a dead or deformed clone or on a clone questioning his individuality and witnessing his own future à la Dorian Gray are merely speculative at best. These cloning opponents should be equally vehemently opposed to the bills in Congress, the South Korean research,3 and Dr Wilmut's license for reproductive human cloning because, in fairness, these actions are arguably on the slippery slope. The inconsistency of cloning opponents is revealed in their near ubiquitous silence. Have they accepted that the genie is out of the bottle, opposition futile, and the slope too slippery? I believe not. Rather, I suppose they hold their convictions close to their heart but practicality or reality has stifled their voice. Compelling public advocates for the use of cloning for stem cell research, such as Dana and the late Christopher Reeves, Michael J. Fox, and Nancy Reagan; the vast nonpublic advocates such as the parents of children with an array of debilitating diseases; and other noncelebrity patients weigh heavily on the consciences of people. The stories of these desperate advocates coupled with the fundamental economics of scientific research might just be enough to help those opponents pacify their convictions. The reality that the United States' position atop the scientific world and global market economy could very well be forfeited if therapeutic cloning and stem cell research are not embraced is one very slippery slope no American should want to slide down.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.