Shuster Evelyne
University of Pennsylvania, Human Rights and Ethics Program, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, University and Woodland Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Bioethics. 2003 Oct;17(5-6):517-25. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00365.
Human cloning has been simultaneously a running joke for massive worldwide publicity of fringe groups like the Raelians, and the core issue of an international movement at the United Nations in support of a treaty to ban the use of cloning techniques to produce a child (so called reproductive cloning). Yet, even though debates on human cloning have greatly increased since the birth of Dolly, the clone sheep, in 1997, we continue to wonder whether cloning is after all any different from other methods of medically assisted reproduction, and what exactly makes cloning an 'affront to the dignity of humans.' Categories we adopt matter mightily as they inform but can also misinform and lead to mistaken and unproductive decisions. And thus bioethicists have a responsibility to ensure that the proper categories are used in the cloning debates and denounce those who try to win the ethical debate through well-crafted labels rather than well-reasoned argumentations. But it is as important for bioethicists to take a position on broad issues such as human cloning and species altering interventions. One 'natural question' would be, for example, should there be an international treaty to ban human reproductive cloning?
人类克隆一方面成为了像雷尔运动这样的边缘团体在全球范围内大肆宣传的笑谈，另一方面也是联合国一项国际运动的核心议题，该运动支持一项禁止使用克隆技术生育孩子（即所谓的生殖性克隆）的条约。然而，尽管自1997年克隆羊多莉诞生以来，关于人类克隆的辩论大幅增加，但我们仍在思考克隆与其他医学辅助生殖方法究竟有无不同，以及究竟是什么让克隆成为了“对人类尊严的冒犯”。我们采用的类别至关重要，因为它们既能提供信息，也可能误导我们，导致错误且徒劳的决定。因此，生物伦理学家有责任确保在克隆辩论中使用恰当的类别，并谴责那些试图通过精心设计的标签而非合理的论证来赢得伦理辩论的人。但生物伦理学家就人类克隆和物种改造干预等广泛问题表明立场同样重要。例如，一个“自然而然的问题”是，是否应该有一项国际条约禁止人类生殖性克隆？
