If the ability to cure a fatal and deliberate disease like diabetes is within the reach of a scientist, should it be exploited? What if that involved donating or copying genetic DNA to accomplish this task? Individuals within the scientific community and the general public have debated at length the ethical issues surrounding therapeutic cloning for at least a quarter of a century, and it appears that the world is no closer to a viable solution. However, it is important to realize that every moment wasted debating the ethical issues surrounding therapeutic cloning is a wasted moment that could be used to eradicate deadly genetic diseases once and for all. Dr. Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer of Advanced Cell Technology, was quoted in a 2014 article as saying: "Therapeutic cloning has long been envisioned as a way to generate patient-specific stem cells that could be used to treat a range of age-related diseases. diseases” (Fox). Although there is a risk of loss of genetic variation and there are also several ethical issues to consider with regard to therapeutic cloning - as the end result of those procedures used for reproductive purposes - cloning for therapeutic purposes should be legal in controlled situations. because of the scientific and medical achievements that can be accomplished to aid in self-preservation. In particular, being able to renew damaged cells with healthier cells would help scientists find suitable treatments and cures for many deadly diseases such as diabetes (Ben-Yehudah 85). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay There is one major point that needs to be made when approaching a topic like this: therapeutic cloning is not a scientific process that strives to make copies of entire humans. Scientists are not trying to create a newborn in this category of cloning, as in reproductive cloning, and this is a common misconception that many people have. Rather, the idea is that scientists will use cloned, unfertilized embryos as a source of embryonic stem cells to use for various therapeutic purposes (Rugnetta). These embryos will never be implanted in another uterus. The procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) involves locating nuclear material found in a somatic cell and placing it into an enucleated oocyte (Kfoury 110). The final goal of this procedure would be to derive embryonic cell lines that have the same genome as the nuclear donor. Once this process is complete, these embryonic stem cells can be manipulated into over 200 different cell types in the human body. So, they could potentially be grown in skin cells, nerve cells, and possibly even hair follicles. But more than anything, scientists would like to use therapeutic cloning to treat life-threatening diseases like Parkinson's disease and diabetes. These are diseases in which a specific type of cell has died, and the theory is that replacing these dead cells would help restore health (Kfoury 112). Therapeutic cloning, with the use of nuclear transferred embryonic stem cells (also known as ntESCs), could offer exciting possibilities for reformative and generative treatments and, more importantly, facilitate gene therapy, in the role of gene transmission trajectory. It is imperative tothink about one major reason why this should be allowed, and it has to do with the survival of humanity. There is a desire instilled in every human being to live and survive. Many people go to great lengths to prolong the quality of their lives. Many opponents of therapeutic cloning confuse it with reproductive cloning. It is important for everyone to realize the difference between the two in order to understand how therapeutic cloning can be vital to their own survival. The goal, again, is not to clone an entire human being, but rather to produce stem cells identical to those of the patient. Therapeutic cloning can help save lives, not destroy them, and it is important for humans to focus on a theological concept called self-preservation. What exactly is this concept? Mary Mahowald, a professor at the University of Chicago who serves on the Genetics Committee, offers self-preservation as a rationale for therapeutic cloning, which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as “the preservation of one's existence; particularly applied to natural law. or instinct that impels living beings to take measures to prolong life and avoid injury” (Mahowald 57). English philosopher Thomas Hobbes described the theological idea of ​​self-preservation as a "right of nature" in his famous book Leviathan. Hobbes went on to say: “The law of nature, which writers commonly call jus naturale, is the liberty which every man possesses. use his own power as he wishes for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and therefore, to do whatever he conceives, according to his own judgment and reason, as the most proper means of achieving it” (Hobbes 103). This “right of nature” gives humans the freedom to do whatever is necessary to preserve themselves. Mahowald specifically discusses whether humans should have the right to deliberately end embryonic life for the purpose of treating life-threatening diseases. One particularly interesting argument is the idea that a woman capable of childbearing and whose life is in danger has a “negative right” to obtain procedures that might help her survive. This would mean that others would not be obligated to interfere with this woman's right to survive, nor would they be obligated to help her. Nor would she be morally permitted to harm anyone in order to obtain such assistance. This negative right does not give a woman the right to kill another person. The idea of ​​self-preservation then only works if it is based on the assumption that embryos are not considered real “persons” (Mahowald 60). The ethical dilemma between "kill/let die" and why using one's own body's genetic information (which could include disposing of embryos) may or may not be the same as killing a person, especially when so many people debate over what exactly constitutes a person. living person. The nature of what constitutes a living person is still the subject of very intense and popular debate, and everyone, in the scientific world and beyond, needs to come to some sort of agreement on this subject. Robert Sparrow, a researcher opposed to therapeutic cloning, made a valid point when he said: "Philosophical work remains to be done to analyze and clarify our notion of genetic parentage as well as the relationship between reproductive freedom and genetic parenthood » (Sparrow 103). . Some may argue that therapeutic cloning should not be legal because the "babies" must be killed to complete the process. They find.