This story takes place in the 1990s where a science boom has resulted in human cloning for the surgical harvesting of organs to cure all sorts of diseases and illnesses. Though it is fiction, there is a black market for organs and human trafficking of organs is also a thing. Looking inward at our own society, can you think of other medical situations/opportunities that currently exist today that may have ethical implications but are increasingly common practice? What does Never Let Me Go tell us about these situations, if anything at all?
As a queer person, one of the medical advancements that this novel reminds me of was artificial insemination and procedures to create a life outside the sexual act. I know many people are also waiting for more medical advancement so that someday we may not even need sperm donors, wouldn't this hint a little to cloning ideal, using DNA. I honestly don't know how plausible this might be but are just ideas that came to mind. I wonder if conservative groups or even people, in general, may see these procedures as an abomination to the natural course of life.
Another procedure to come to mind is the use of stem cells he repairs damaged cells or cures sickness. If medical advancements go far it could change the natural course of mortality. It would mean we play with the DNA, would then these people still be considered humans no matter the genetic modification?
Another procedure to come to mind is the use of stem cells he repairs damaged cells or cures sickness. If medical advancements go far it could change the natural course of mortality. It would mean we play with the DNA, would then these people still be considered humans no matter the genetic modification?
Those are some great points. If clones cannot be considered real people, then what of people who were concieved via IVF? Why wouldn't they be considered people? But on the other side of organ donation, I personally think you should be allowed to opt out of organ donation as a human but you should automatically be enrolled for such things, it is actually quite annoying to go and apply so that your organs will be donated after you die, thats why more people arent signed up. I think auto enrollment with an option to decline would save a lot more people waiting for life saving organ donation.
Looking inward at our own society, something that I found was selective embryo choosing. We have developed technology to be able to look at the DNA of embryos, and find out if they have diseases like diabetes, and other defects. This is done so that parents can select the embryo to assure their child wont have any illness. This seems okay, as it is just looking out for your child's health and this is also deemed ethical by US fertility doctors. However, "the same techniques can be used to project the eventual height, weight, skin tone, and even intelligence of an IVF embryo." This is where the ethical controversy arises, is it ethical to be able to hand pick exactly what kind of child you will be having to assure they are smart, attractive etc? I find this quite troubling. If we continue moving in the direction that technology and genetics is currently moving, these embryo tests can begin to be normalized, and then continue to develop to where people can select an embryo based on their future weight and IQ. A quote from the article I read that troubled me was this,
“Suppose I could tell you embryo four is going to be the tallest, embryo three is going to be the smartest, embryo two is going to be very antisocial. Suppose that level of granularity was available in the reports,” he told the conservative radio and YouTube personality Stefan Molyneux this spring. “That is the near-term future that we as a civilization face. This is going to be here.”
I don't think going this far with genetics is ethical. Testing for diseases is okay, but going as far as designing your child is something that sits very unwell with me. What if this practice becomes available, but is costly? Will the rich be able to hand select perfect children, while those who do not have the funds will not? This will further ostracize those with disabilities, when our world is already ableist, and create entirely different class issues.
“Suppose I could tell you embryo four is going to be the tallest, embryo three is going to be the smartest, embryo two is going to be very antisocial. Suppose that level of granularity was available in the reports,” he told the conservative radio and YouTube personality Stefan Molyneux this spring. “That is the near-term future that we as a civilization face. This is going to be here.”
I don't think going this far with genetics is ethical. Testing for diseases is okay, but going as far as designing your child is something that sits very unwell with me. What if this practice becomes available, but is costly? Will the rich be able to hand select perfect children, while those who do not have the funds will not? This will further ostracize those with disabilities, when our world is already ableist, and create entirely different class issues.
I can see some parallels to the novel. Hand selecting perfect children is kind of what they did to create the characters in the novel. They were created healthy so that they can eventually donate organs, as that is their purpose. Most dystopian novels like this draw upon things in the real world and over dramatize them, it's not all made up, but based on real world current issues. I can see this genetic issue I described as being something that could lead to what we see in the novel.
I fully agree with your opinion, Sarah. The sort of colloquial term for this procedure is designer babies and I think that about sums up the ethical implications of this medical field. Eradicating certain traits by the standards set forth in a certain time period would I think have very dire implications. Especially, if we think about physical traits and how the preferences for those have drastically changed over time.
I think the idea of selective embryo choosing to both be scary and hopeful (Im not sure if hopeful is exactly the word I'm looking for but I've been sitting here for way too long trying to think of the word) For one, I think it's scary that people could be chosen based off their characteristics, and it becomes even scarier when you think about genetic manipulation combined with the selective embryo choosing. If it got into the wrong hand's someone could create a child based on ill intentions. Rather than choosing embryos that demonstrate positive qualities, they could choose qualities or characteristics in which could be harmful to others (e.g., severe anger, extremely antisocial, arrogant). Another reason this is scary is because of how advanced they would be over other people. For example, a lot more probable that someone who was born to be highly intelligent would do much better in school and thus get a better job. This would extend into a lot of our daily life. For example in sports, embryos could be picked and designed to be very tall and fast, giving those who have to learn these skills the short end of the stick. The reason I say it could be hopeful is that if used properly I think it could have some positive outcomes, such as choosing children who demonstrate positive qualities and eliminating the number of bad qualities people possess.
Hi Emily, I do see some positives too, though I think the positives more so have to do with testing for diseases and not the personality traits or physical abilities portion like you talk about. Though I agree it would be nice if we could choose children with positive qualities, I still do not know if I find that ethical. As much as one may want an outgoing child, who does not have anger issues, or a child who is intelligent or good at sports, I still do not think that it is right to just design your child like that. Raising a child also has a great effect on how they "turn out", as psychologists say you it's around 50/50 nature/nurture. But back to what you said, I do not know if I agree with you completely on the hopeful portion of what you said, just because the idea of picking how your child turns out, though it sounds great, it is still a very uncomfortable thought to me, I think it would come with so many implications, and I do not think we should progress to the "designer babies" as Minahil phrased it.
I completely agree with you. When I was talking about athletic ability and intelligence I was stating those as negatives in terms of genetic manipulation & selective embryo choosing and how that would create difficulties for those who chose not to have children through embryo choosing/ genetic manipulation. I 100% agree with you that the practice would be unethical and I defiently do not think it would be something I would ever be comfortable with. When discussing having positive qualities I was more referring to if it became a widespread practice but I definitely do not think that this is a reason to progress to this type of society, I realize I didn't specify that in my initial response my apologies.
No worries! I definitely read into what you said in the wrong way, my bad, I see now you were talking about those things in a negative way. Glad we are on the same page!!
Hey Emily! I always thought about cloning as unethical, but I never thought of the embryo-selection as unethical. I never even thought of it in depth to be honest. I knew it happened, but I thought it was in most serious cases. I never thought about it to be something practiced as often as it is. As a matter of fact this procedure happened to people fairly close to me who couldn't conceive a child so they opted for IVF with their partner, and eventually they chose the strongest embryo because of the likeliness of the child being strong and healthy and they mostly chose this not to decide what child they would have but just so they could have their family and a healthy baby. There is nothing wrong with this procedure, but the fact that someone would decide to create a child on specific terms down to the child's personality that is scary. I guess there is a fine line that determines what is okay and what is not and some people may abuse of this 'power'.
This idea of designer babies really worries me on an ethical level. I am an avid fan of science fiction that looks at these sorts of issues in various ways. A Brave New World is a good read for this, too. Besides all your great points, another fear I have is the potential to create second class citizens which would be class-based. The wealthy among us will be able to afford the technology to create the perfect among us.
Funny! When I told my roommate about this novel and its plot, he recommended a Brave New World to me as well professor! I do not fully understand how the plots are connected since this story was very sad and dreary as the characters knew they would die, but in Brave New World, nobody is allowed to be sad or angry or anything else but happy. To me, this novel seemed like a cross between Farhenheit 451, The Giver, and Indian Horse.
Hi Annabelle!
I agree with you. As you mention, embryo selection is common and is not necessarily unethical. It makes sense to me that an individual pursuing IVF would decide to choose the strongest embryo. What does not make sense to me is having the opportunity to genetically engineer a 'perfect' human being. Ultimately, this gives societies most advantaged the opportunity to create 'perfect' humans as a way to continue the cycle of maintaining their power in society.
I agree with you. As you mention, embryo selection is common and is not necessarily unethical. It makes sense to me that an individual pursuing IVF would decide to choose the strongest embryo. What does not make sense to me is having the opportunity to genetically engineer a 'perfect' human being. Ultimately, this gives societies most advantaged the opportunity to create 'perfect' humans as a way to continue the cycle of maintaining their power in society.
I think you make a great point here. By allowing governments to go so far as to have the ability to pick and choose genetics is dangerous. Throughout history we have already seen instances of governments and regimes attempting to 'ethnically cleanse' societies based on their genetic preference. Too similarly we see this being done in the book and in your example as well. Giving governments the power to choose what genetics are preferred in society makes anyone who does not fit under the preference feel unwanted in society. Additionally, this kind of genetic preference is a major component of genocide or steps to genocide. It seems inhumane in the novel to specifically create children for them to be tools for medical use.
I remember learning about cloning and selective embryo choosing in high school when talking about Dolly the lamb who was the first mammal animal that was cloned. I decided to google what other animals have been successfully cloned and I was shocked to find that other mammals have also been successfully cloned since Dolly, such as cats, dogs, deer’s, monkeys, rabbits, etc. I assumed that they had progressed since then, but I didn't realize how many animals they have used. I thought that this would be interesting to add as although it is still very complicated, it is very alarming to me how much the practice has been able to progress in 50 years.
According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, it would be very difficult to clone a human embryo but not impossible. I'm wondering what your opinions are on the idea of human cloning in the future? To me, it is a very scary thought that someone could have the exact same genetic makeup as you. I think there would be severe repercussions from human rights and criminal justice perspectives such as an increase in false imprisonment due to the same DNA, identity fraud, or life-long health implications due to the difficulties associated with cloning. Although there would be some benefits like artificial insemination because as Sara explained, it would help women be able to reproduce without a sperm donor. Another positive outcome my source identified is the ability to limit diseases. For example, if there was a history of cancer on the father's side, they could clone the mother's DNA. I think if human cloning became possible there would have to be a lot of strict guidelines to protect those who do not want to use it in situations that benefit both parties (both the cloned and the one being cloned). Without these strict laws, we could see situations like in the novel where people are cloned for the sole purpose provide benefits to some members of society.
My source:https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Cloning-Fact-Sheet
According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, it would be very difficult to clone a human embryo but not impossible. I'm wondering what your opinions are on the idea of human cloning in the future? To me, it is a very scary thought that someone could have the exact same genetic makeup as you. I think there would be severe repercussions from human rights and criminal justice perspectives such as an increase in false imprisonment due to the same DNA, identity fraud, or life-long health implications due to the difficulties associated with cloning. Although there would be some benefits like artificial insemination because as Sara explained, it would help women be able to reproduce without a sperm donor. Another positive outcome my source identified is the ability to limit diseases. For example, if there was a history of cancer on the father's side, they could clone the mother's DNA. I think if human cloning became possible there would have to be a lot of strict guidelines to protect those who do not want to use it in situations that benefit both parties (both the cloned and the one being cloned). Without these strict laws, we could see situations like in the novel where people are cloned for the sole purpose provide benefits to some members of society.
My source:https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Cloning-Fact-Sheet
Hi Emily! I agree with your analysis. While genetic cloning could be used for the 'good' (i.e. with your example of avoiding a cancerous DNA pattern on one side of your family), I agree that it's scary to look at the other possibilities of cloning human DNA. I don't believe that humanity can be improved through genetic cloning, as it would lead us down a dangerous path (as the eugenics movement once did). Cloning could be used to breed 'better' humans, which, as you have noted, opens the door for serious human rights violations.
Side comment on your analysis Emily but I LOVED learning about Dolly the sheep and genetics in grade 12! That whole phase really got me interested in stem cells and stem cell research, which definitely is a better option then using clones for organs.
I remember learning about eugenics which is a process to improve the human specie through selective mating, that is, only reproducing with someone who has desirable traits. Eugenics was something more so done in the past but I see the same resemblance of it in modern day human genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is the process of using recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology to alter the genetic makeup of an organism. Most often, a gene from another species is added to an organism's genome to give it a desired trait. Although it has not been performed on a human being before, this would allow sick genes to be replaced with healthy ones and possible cure many illnesses. While this can be a very helpful advancement it still poses some ethical implications. For one, who will decide which genome needs improvement? Majority of the population would not have access to this advancement so if others are being made 'perfect' inequalities will arise. It also seems morally incorrect to me to engineer a human being to what is society's' definition of improved or perfect.
Never Let Me Go shows me that doing this may be suitable to one person but the the person who is genetically altered is being robbed of their will to decide their own fate. At one point Ruth wanted to work in an office but her fate was already decided for her. I feel like these advancements take away from a person and is another way for the more fortunate in society to get ahead of others.
Never Let Me Go shows me that doing this may be suitable to one person but the the person who is genetically altered is being robbed of their will to decide their own fate. At one point Ruth wanted to work in an office but her fate was already decided for her. I feel like these advancements take away from a person and is another way for the more fortunate in society to get ahead of others.
Hi Kryssonia! I agree with your analysis. Once we begin intentionally modifying genomes, it certainly raises ethical concern. I think it would open the door for discrimination on many fronts (i.e. race/ethnicity, disability, gender, etc.) if we begin to design the perfect human through genetic engineering based on society's definition of 'improved' or 'perfect.'
Hi Kryssonia!
The idea of modifying genomes to create a 'perfect' human being is frightening. As human beings, our differences should be celebrated rather than corrected and the introduction of genetic engineering certainly poses a threat to heightened discrimination and inequality. As outlined in Article 1 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, we all have the right to self-determination. To that end, I question how this right can be fulfilled if through genetic engineering, an individual already has their fate decided for them, as you mention. A person may see genetic engineering as an opportunity to create a 'perfect' human being however, I do not think that an individual can truly enjoy the rights set out in the UDHR and other human rights treaties if they have been molded to fit certain characteristics through genetic modification.
The idea of modifying genomes to create a 'perfect' human being is frightening. As human beings, our differences should be celebrated rather than corrected and the introduction of genetic engineering certainly poses a threat to heightened discrimination and inequality. As outlined in Article 1 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, we all have the right to self-determination. To that end, I question how this right can be fulfilled if through genetic engineering, an individual already has their fate decided for them, as you mention. A person may see genetic engineering as an opportunity to create a 'perfect' human being however, I do not think that an individual can truly enjoy the rights set out in the UDHR and other human rights treaties if they have been molded to fit certain characteristics through genetic modification.
Hi Kryssonia,
I completely agree with you. I think Eugenics can be very interesting in terms of curing diseases. The human body is fascinating, for example, (as I understand it) people with two genes for sickle-cell anemia will have sick-cell anemia, however someone carrying only one gene will not have sickle-cell anemia but be resistant to malaria. There are so many possibilities for eugenics which makes me understand the scientific interest, but I think we as humans also need to be cognizant and vigilant with its practice. Scientists or doctors employing eugenics need to understand the level of trust involved in the process and the moral and ethical questions raised in the practice. I also think that favouring genes from certain individuals over others, such as athletes, people with high IQ's, Swedes, and so forth, implies that anything not fitting within that narrow scope is automatically deemed less-than.
I completely agree with you. I think Eugenics can be very interesting in terms of curing diseases. The human body is fascinating, for example, (as I understand it) people with two genes for sickle-cell anemia will have sick-cell anemia, however someone carrying only one gene will not have sickle-cell anemia but be resistant to malaria. There are so many possibilities for eugenics which makes me understand the scientific interest, but I think we as humans also need to be cognizant and vigilant with its practice. Scientists or doctors employing eugenics need to understand the level of trust involved in the process and the moral and ethical questions raised in the practice. I also think that favouring genes from certain individuals over others, such as athletes, people with high IQ's, Swedes, and so forth, implies that anything not fitting within that narrow scope is automatically deemed less-than.
When reading this novel I also thought of selective embryo choosing. Specifically, I thought of the novel My Sister's Keeper which is another fictional story but focuses on a controversial issue with selective embryo choosing which happens in real life. The idea of looking into the DNA of an embryo to choose a desirable child is scary enough, but in these specific cases, these embryos are picked to be "saviour siblings" who are chosen to be able to be a perfect match to donate tissue to help an older sick child. So in these cases not only are these embryo's picked to be a families "perfect child", but they are picked to be able to donate and save a sick sibling. They are born to go through medical procedures without their consent which certainly raises some ethical questions.
Hi Emily! I remember reading that book and I think you bring up some interesting points. Is it ethical to force a child to donate blood/tissue to their sibling against their will? I can certainly see some parallels to the novel in this case. While I am personally for donating organs once we pass away (or non-essential blood/tissue while we are living), I firmly believe that it is ethically wrong to do force someone to do so against their wishes.
Hi Emily, I completely agree that the lack of consent does amount to ethical issues. I have seen some cases of "saviour siblings" actually being born. Although it is not a commonly used practiced, some parents have opted for this.
Here are two articles of such instances - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-54658007 and https://www.bbc.com/news/health-12055034
Here are two articles of such instances - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-54658007 and https://www.bbc.com/news/health-12055034
There is an episode of Grey's Anatomy called "I Bet It Stung" that touches on the topic of "saviour siblings" where a girl named Reese Woods had a sister named Donna Woods who was essentially her saviour sister. She had previously already donated some of her liver, blood, and bone marrow to her sibling. The episode showed her sister was in a paragliding accident after going into remission of her aplastic anemia, and her sister Donna was found to be a match. Poor Donna is crying to Callie and Owen saying "What's mine is hers!" and continues to say how she believed her parents never loved her like they did her sister.
Parents who conceive a child just to save their other children are not fit parents. This is a CLEAR case of child abuse - and what's worse is that the sisters were grown adults. So legally speaking, Donna had no obligation to donate to her sister.
According to the CRC, here are the potential prima facie violations that the parents do in the Grey's Anatomy episode, but are also applicable to this novel:
Article 6
1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.
Clearly, both the parents in the episode and the guardians at the schools never cared for the children's right to life and solely saw them as donors. An example from the book was when the madame came to the school for a visit and could barely stand to look at the children and refused to touch them.
Article 18
1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.
Clearly, for both the parents and the guardians, the best interest of their children was not their main priority - they cared only for their health. In the book, the guardians told the children to not have anything to do with cigarettes because they were "special" and it would do more harm to them than themselves if they went smoking. They cared about their health to ensure they would be viable candidates for donations and nothing more.
Article 19
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
In the Grey's episode, the government should have stepped in and put Donna into foster care, with parents that wouldn't just raise her for slaughter. In the book though, the government knew about school because this book is a backwards dystopia that is meant to be a solution to diseases that could save all lives. The government would force these children later in life to donate by providing them with notice, and giving them carers to take care of them. The doctors would "do everything they could" (which is what they said for Ruth's case) but yet when Tommy had kidney trouble, they did nothing. Once a donor does a 3rd or 4th donation, they "complete" - just a euphemism for death and the doctors do nothing. In the real world, doctors would lose their license and probably be thrown in jail for their negligence. The fact that this system continues to happen tells me that the government must know about this or is obviously oblivious to the situation, in which they fail their duty to protect.
Article 24
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.
2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:
(a) To diminish infant and child mortality;
(b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care;
(c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution;
Clearly in both cases, there is not a high standard of healthcare. In the episode, the doctors fail to provide better ways for Reese to get better, so they just say "meh, the sister is a match so no odds" but that takes a huge toll on Donna's mental health as she believes her parents do not love her and only had her as a donor for Reese. In the book, the children are given doctor's appointments on a regular basis to ensure they are healthy. However, they have poor mental health throughout their lives with no sense of achievement, no purpose other than to donate, and barely have love lives because they just think "what is the point?". None of them have children, get married, get pets etc. because they know their sole purpose is to save lives by sacrificing their own bodies. The doctors do not provide an adequate standard of healthcare because they know the drill. Cut, donate, repeat. Mental health is an important part of attainable healthcare services that the State in this society just does not provide. Poor Tommy would have tantrums throughout the novel, and by the end when he found out that deferrals for couples were not real, he screamed so loud that Kathy mistook him for some manic who appeared out of the bushes. Kathy and Tommy were referred to as "poor creatures" during their visit, and their old guardians mentioned how proud they were of the lives they had lived up until that point. They claimed they never would have made it such far without their guidance because Hailsham was meant to be the most humane place to treat clones. Suffice to say, these children and these adults are never seen as anything more than 1) a burden to raise like animals for the slaughterhouse and 2) like saviours to cure diseases - not even valuable members of society. Hence why Kathy went looking for her original in a porn magazine, because the assumption is that the clones were modelled from "trash." Junkies, prostitutes, winos, tramps, and convicts if they are not psychos. To go your whole life thinking this is who you re and where you come from is difficult on one's mental health.
Article 27
1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.
Clearly failed in both cases - just read my arguments from the last article.
Article 36
States Parties shall protect the child against all other forms of exploitation prejudicial to any aspects of the child's welfare.
In Grey's Callie and Owen attempt to stop Donna from donating because they think she deserves a better life. This pans out in the end. However, in the book, the children are definitely exploited and the State had no intention of protecting them. Hailsham WAS their protection - the only place apparently willing to treat clones in a "humane" fashion (Even though they clearly did not do enough.)
Article 37
States Parties shall ensure that:
(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without the possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;
In Grey's, it seemed inhumane to force a sibling to save another to Callie and Owen, who did attempt to help Donna. However, the torture in this book of having no future, no promising life or career, and just wasting time floating in life until they were ready to donate reminds me of people on Death Row. This book definitely depicts a society that not accurately but subjectively demonstrates the life of a death row inmate. They are living people who are seen to the State as waste until they are executed. In States that offer the Death Penalty, I can imagine that prison life isn't the greatest leading up to death - which is why it is banned in most countries. T
My sources:
https://greysanatomy.fandom.com/wiki/I_Bet_It_Stung
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
Parents who conceive a child just to save their other children are not fit parents. This is a CLEAR case of child abuse - and what's worse is that the sisters were grown adults. So legally speaking, Donna had no obligation to donate to her sister.
According to the CRC, here are the potential prima facie violations that the parents do in the Grey's Anatomy episode, but are also applicable to this novel:
Article 6
1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.
Clearly, both the parents in the episode and the guardians at the schools never cared for the children's right to life and solely saw them as donors. An example from the book was when the madame came to the school for a visit and could barely stand to look at the children and refused to touch them.
Article 18
1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.
Clearly, for both the parents and the guardians, the best interest of their children was not their main priority - they cared only for their health. In the book, the guardians told the children to not have anything to do with cigarettes because they were "special" and it would do more harm to them than themselves if they went smoking. They cared about their health to ensure they would be viable candidates for donations and nothing more.
Article 19
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
In the Grey's episode, the government should have stepped in and put Donna into foster care, with parents that wouldn't just raise her for slaughter. In the book though, the government knew about school because this book is a backwards dystopia that is meant to be a solution to diseases that could save all lives. The government would force these children later in life to donate by providing them with notice, and giving them carers to take care of them. The doctors would "do everything they could" (which is what they said for Ruth's case) but yet when Tommy had kidney trouble, they did nothing. Once a donor does a 3rd or 4th donation, they "complete" - just a euphemism for death and the doctors do nothing. In the real world, doctors would lose their license and probably be thrown in jail for their negligence. The fact that this system continues to happen tells me that the government must know about this or is obviously oblivious to the situation, in which they fail their duty to protect.
Article 24
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.
2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:
(a) To diminish infant and child mortality;
(b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care;
(c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution;
Clearly in both cases, there is not a high standard of healthcare. In the episode, the doctors fail to provide better ways for Reese to get better, so they just say "meh, the sister is a match so no odds" but that takes a huge toll on Donna's mental health as she believes her parents do not love her and only had her as a donor for Reese. In the book, the children are given doctor's appointments on a regular basis to ensure they are healthy. However, they have poor mental health throughout their lives with no sense of achievement, no purpose other than to donate, and barely have love lives because they just think "what is the point?". None of them have children, get married, get pets etc. because they know their sole purpose is to save lives by sacrificing their own bodies. The doctors do not provide an adequate standard of healthcare because they know the drill. Cut, donate, repeat. Mental health is an important part of attainable healthcare services that the State in this society just does not provide. Poor Tommy would have tantrums throughout the novel, and by the end when he found out that deferrals for couples were not real, he screamed so loud that Kathy mistook him for some manic who appeared out of the bushes. Kathy and Tommy were referred to as "poor creatures" during their visit, and their old guardians mentioned how proud they were of the lives they had lived up until that point. They claimed they never would have made it such far without their guidance because Hailsham was meant to be the most humane place to treat clones. Suffice to say, these children and these adults are never seen as anything more than 1) a burden to raise like animals for the slaughterhouse and 2) like saviours to cure diseases - not even valuable members of society. Hence why Kathy went looking for her original in a porn magazine, because the assumption is that the clones were modelled from "trash." Junkies, prostitutes, winos, tramps, and convicts if they are not psychos. To go your whole life thinking this is who you re and where you come from is difficult on one's mental health.
Article 27
1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.
Clearly failed in both cases - just read my arguments from the last article.
Article 36
States Parties shall protect the child against all other forms of exploitation prejudicial to any aspects of the child's welfare.
In Grey's Callie and Owen attempt to stop Donna from donating because they think she deserves a better life. This pans out in the end. However, in the book, the children are definitely exploited and the State had no intention of protecting them. Hailsham WAS their protection - the only place apparently willing to treat clones in a "humane" fashion (Even though they clearly did not do enough.)
Article 37
States Parties shall ensure that:
(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without the possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;
In Grey's, it seemed inhumane to force a sibling to save another to Callie and Owen, who did attempt to help Donna. However, the torture in this book of having no future, no promising life or career, and just wasting time floating in life until they were ready to donate reminds me of people on Death Row. This book definitely depicts a society that not accurately but subjectively demonstrates the life of a death row inmate. They are living people who are seen to the State as waste until they are executed. In States that offer the Death Penalty, I can imagine that prison life isn't the greatest leading up to death - which is why it is banned in most countries. T
My sources:
https://greysanatomy.fandom.com/wiki/I_Bet_It_Stung
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
Also just want to add that this book shows similar parallels to States that allow capital punishment such as the US and China. The life of a Death Row Inmate is very similar to the life lead by Kathy, Ruth and Tommy, where they never knew when they would get notice of the end of their life. Institutes need death row inmates to be "well enough to be executed", so they are often monitored for underlying health issues. Killing people for the betterment of society is often looked down upon, hence why capital punishment is banned in the majority of States.
My last point is from history, and not exactly today's society. During ww2, the Nazis did medical experiments that lead to medical breakthroughs, such as a cure for hypothermia, treatment for freezing nerves in surgery, etc. Often, their experiments were on how different races reacted to types of diseases, or euthanasia, which were pointless torture. For the breakthroughs that advanced medicine today, a question often argued is should we dispose of their findings, even if it means finding new methods? Is it wrong ethically speaking to use their findings in today's society, even to help save lives? The company IG Farben was the creator of the gas chamber chemical Zyclon B, and was dissolved shortly after the war, but the companies involved, such as Bayer and Bayer, and BASF, are still some of the biggest chemistry and pharmaceutical companies today. They provide our midol for period cramps, our IB profen, our advils and tylenols. Should we dissolve these companies because of their harms, even though their work now helps millions of people around the world with their drugs?
This book holds similar thinking questions. Essentially in both scenarios, the question underlying is "should we allow the few to suffer to save the lives of the many? Kazuo Ishiguro created a society that was a utilitarian utopia that has the same theme as "The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas". Allow the few to suffer for the many to live and lead happy lives. From a Human Rights standpoint, I think this novel's society is wrong and could've made better solutions for the "greater good" of its people.
My sources:
Boisaubin, Eugene V., Alexander G. Duarte, Patricia Blair, and T. Howard Stone. “‘Well Enough to Execute’: The Health Professional’s Responsibility to the Death Row Inmate.” Journal of Correctional Health Care 11, no. 1 (January 2004): 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/107834580401100103.
My last point is from history, and not exactly today's society. During ww2, the Nazis did medical experiments that lead to medical breakthroughs, such as a cure for hypothermia, treatment for freezing nerves in surgery, etc. Often, their experiments were on how different races reacted to types of diseases, or euthanasia, which were pointless torture. For the breakthroughs that advanced medicine today, a question often argued is should we dispose of their findings, even if it means finding new methods? Is it wrong ethically speaking to use their findings in today's society, even to help save lives? The company IG Farben was the creator of the gas chamber chemical Zyclon B, and was dissolved shortly after the war, but the companies involved, such as Bayer and Bayer, and BASF, are still some of the biggest chemistry and pharmaceutical companies today. They provide our midol for period cramps, our IB profen, our advils and tylenols. Should we dissolve these companies because of their harms, even though their work now helps millions of people around the world with their drugs?
This book holds similar thinking questions. Essentially in both scenarios, the question underlying is "should we allow the few to suffer to save the lives of the many? Kazuo Ishiguro created a society that was a utilitarian utopia that has the same theme as "The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas". Allow the few to suffer for the many to live and lead happy lives. From a Human Rights standpoint, I think this novel's society is wrong and could've made better solutions for the "greater good" of its people.
My sources:
Boisaubin, Eugene V., Alexander G. Duarte, Patricia Blair, and T. Howard Stone. “‘Well Enough to Execute’: The Health Professional’s Responsibility to the Death Row Inmate.” Journal of Correctional Health Care 11, no. 1 (January 2004): 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/107834580401100103.
Hi Emily,
I thought of this too! It baffles my mind that this actually happens in real life. To think that a child can be born to act as a "saviour sibling" is so problematic to me, and violates the very existence of the child.
I thought of this too! It baffles my mind that this actually happens in real life. To think that a child can be born to act as a "saviour sibling" is so problematic to me, and violates the very existence of the child.
A medical opportunity that has significant ethical implications is euthanasia or assisted suicide. With this, comes to mind a particular case my sister told me about that she had learned in her healthcare law class: the Robert Latimer case. Latimer killed his severely disabled daughter who had been denied assisted suicide, and his prosecution for murder raised ethical controversy. Latimer described the many surgical operations that his daughter would have faced as “torture” and “mutilation.” So, was assisted suicide in this case morally wrong?
Since that case, developments in assisted dying law have come into effect, allowing medical practitioners to legally assist another person to end their own life under certain conditions. Requests for this often come from individuals experiencing unbearable suffering with no hopes of improvement.
In the novel, the word ‘kill’ and ‘death’ are seldom used, as is often the case with advocates for euthanasia advocates. We, as humans, will not live forever. It is how we die (or ‘complete’) that raises ethical concern, as seen in the novel and in the current euthanasia debate.
Source:
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/robert-latimer-case
Since that case, developments in assisted dying law have come into effect, allowing medical practitioners to legally assist another person to end their own life under certain conditions. Requests for this often come from individuals experiencing unbearable suffering with no hopes of improvement.
In the novel, the word ‘kill’ and ‘death’ are seldom used, as is often the case with advocates for euthanasia advocates. We, as humans, will not live forever. It is how we die (or ‘complete’) that raises ethical concern, as seen in the novel and in the current euthanasia debate.
Source:
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/robert-latimer-case
Hi Emily, this is a very interesting medical debate that I did not think of. I too know of that case, and though Robert was prosecuted, throughout the case he had many supporters on his side not seeing what he had done as murder. It is interesting to mention the language, I find it interesting that in the novel they use "complete" instead, making it seem almost not as bad as it really is. Same way that Robert used language that made it seem not as bad, and that it was not really murder.
However a major difference I see is that typically euthanasia or assisted suicide is done with consent, as the person suffering themselves choose to die, and the novel, and Robert's daughter, these children have no say in their life ending. But great connection thank you for sharing!!
However a major difference I see is that typically euthanasia or assisted suicide is done with consent, as the person suffering themselves choose to die, and the novel, and Robert's daughter, these children have no say in their life ending. But great connection thank you for sharing!!
Hi Emily!
I learned about the Latimer case recently in my criminal law class and appreciate your mention of it in this discussion! As you and Sarah noted, both the children in the novel and Latimer's daughter had no say in their death. Euthanasia is legal in Canada however, it requires the patient to meet a very specific eligibility criteria including that the individual is making this decision on their own and has not been influenced or pressured by others to do so. In the Latimer case, Tracy was not aware that her father was going to do this even though he claimed it was for her own benefit.
I think that your last sentence perfectly summarizes the ethical dilemma in stating that "as humans we will not live forever. It is how we die that raises ethical concern". As humans, we all have the right to dignity and it is clear both in the novel and in the Latimer case that these children had this fundamental right infringed upon.
I learned about the Latimer case recently in my criminal law class and appreciate your mention of it in this discussion! As you and Sarah noted, both the children in the novel and Latimer's daughter had no say in their death. Euthanasia is legal in Canada however, it requires the patient to meet a very specific eligibility criteria including that the individual is making this decision on their own and has not been influenced or pressured by others to do so. In the Latimer case, Tracy was not aware that her father was going to do this even though he claimed it was for her own benefit.
I think that your last sentence perfectly summarizes the ethical dilemma in stating that "as humans we will not live forever. It is how we die that raises ethical concern". As humans, we all have the right to dignity and it is clear both in the novel and in the Latimer case that these children had this fundamental right infringed upon.
Hi Emily! I've also read this case through my Rights and Revolutions class last year. Assisted suicide, or assisted dying has long been a controversial issue. In that case, I remember that there were major questions as to whether the father had the right to choose his daughter's fate since she could not consent. Did he have the right to choose for her? Did he have the right as a legal guardian to make that decision if her disabilities acted as a barrier for her to decide on her own? Latimer assumed that the further medical procedures on his daughter would cause torture, however he also understood that she would live her entire life in pain. For Latimer to not have access to medically assisted death within the healthcare system, he instead decided to take matters into his own hands.
I think you also make an interesting comment on how the way we die or "complete" is what brings about ethical concerns. In the Latimer case, there were opinions on either side saying whether Latimer's decision to 'assist' his daughter in dying was the best ethical way. But what is the most ethical way if there is not a safe medical practice for people to choose on their own? Is suicide more ethical than assisted dying?
I think you also make an interesting comment on how the way we die or "complete" is what brings about ethical concerns. In the Latimer case, there were opinions on either side saying whether Latimer's decision to 'assist' his daughter in dying was the best ethical way. But what is the most ethical way if there is not a safe medical practice for people to choose on their own? Is suicide more ethical than assisted dying?
When thinking of an example of a medical opportunity that currently exists and have ethical complications, I immediately thought of telemedicine—particularly due to its increasing prevalence during COVID-19.
Telemedicine refers to the use of medical information and technology to advance clinical care at a distance where patients can communicate with doctors through text, e-mail, calling, and mobile-device applications (AMA Journal of Ethics). Particularly during the pandemic, the thought of telemedicine is appealing beyond its convenience as it provides a safe alternative to physically going to a doctors office and potentially being exposed (or unknowingly exposing others) to the virus.
The novel explores the topic of human cloning where the children clones donate their organs to help others outside of Hailsham. The idea of human cloning and surgical harvesting may be viewed as being a positive advancement for healthcare however, from an ethical standpoint, it is worrisome. The clones in the novel are ultimately made for the sole purpose of donating their organs however, they also experience similar characteristics to humans namely, feeling emotion.
While the example of human cloning in Never Let Me Go is extreme, there are still ethical dilemmas involved in telemedicine. First, by adapting to telemedicine, the patient-physician relationship is endangered where patients do not have the opportunity to build mutual trust in the same manner that they would if appointments were in person (AMA Journal of Ethics). Moreover, telemedicine poses a threat to privacy as it is difficult for patients to know who they are speaking to, and who is accessing their personal medical information (AMA Journal of Ethics). This also raises the concern of whether telemedicine lowers the quality of care. It is difficult to communicate through technology, and when dealing with issues regarding healthcare, it is possible that telemedicine has improved in making appointments more accessible, but decreased in the level of care.
Although telemedicine is not as extreme as human cloning, both lead to the same conclusion. Society is always looking at new ways to improve healthcare and make it more efficient however, what is convenient is not always what is right. Is it really worth it to cause suffering to the clones in Never Let Me Go instead of seeking more humane alternatives to curing illnesses and assisting others? Is it really worth it to risk patient privacy and level of care for the sake of convenience?
Source: https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/telemedicines-potential-ethical-pitfalls/2014-12
Telemedicine refers to the use of medical information and technology to advance clinical care at a distance where patients can communicate with doctors through text, e-mail, calling, and mobile-device applications (AMA Journal of Ethics). Particularly during the pandemic, the thought of telemedicine is appealing beyond its convenience as it provides a safe alternative to physically going to a doctors office and potentially being exposed (or unknowingly exposing others) to the virus.
The novel explores the topic of human cloning where the children clones donate their organs to help others outside of Hailsham. The idea of human cloning and surgical harvesting may be viewed as being a positive advancement for healthcare however, from an ethical standpoint, it is worrisome. The clones in the novel are ultimately made for the sole purpose of donating their organs however, they also experience similar characteristics to humans namely, feeling emotion.
While the example of human cloning in Never Let Me Go is extreme, there are still ethical dilemmas involved in telemedicine. First, by adapting to telemedicine, the patient-physician relationship is endangered where patients do not have the opportunity to build mutual trust in the same manner that they would if appointments were in person (AMA Journal of Ethics). Moreover, telemedicine poses a threat to privacy as it is difficult for patients to know who they are speaking to, and who is accessing their personal medical information (AMA Journal of Ethics). This also raises the concern of whether telemedicine lowers the quality of care. It is difficult to communicate through technology, and when dealing with issues regarding healthcare, it is possible that telemedicine has improved in making appointments more accessible, but decreased in the level of care.
Although telemedicine is not as extreme as human cloning, both lead to the same conclusion. Society is always looking at new ways to improve healthcare and make it more efficient however, what is convenient is not always what is right. Is it really worth it to cause suffering to the clones in Never Let Me Go instead of seeking more humane alternatives to curing illnesses and assisting others? Is it really worth it to risk patient privacy and level of care for the sake of convenience?
Source: https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/telemedicines-potential-ethical-pitfalls/2014-12
Hi Brianna,
I think I understand what you are saying. I understand the efforts to make healthcare easily accessible especially given Covid-19 but it leads me to wonder about the accuracy of ae diagnosis? I think communication may be lacking when physicians give diagnosis without all testing procedures they would normally conduct. I like the point you brought up about the risk to privacy. I completely agree, personal information like medical history should always be protected and their should be confidence in that protection.
I think I understand what you are saying. I understand the efforts to make healthcare easily accessible especially given Covid-19 but it leads me to wonder about the accuracy of ae diagnosis? I think communication may be lacking when physicians give diagnosis without all testing procedures they would normally conduct. I like the point you brought up about the risk to privacy. I completely agree, personal information like medical history should always be protected and their should be confidence in that protection.
Hi Brianna,
I also worry about this issue. Aside from the privacy factor, which is obviously a concern, I agree with Kryssonia that the diagnosis itself may be impaired through online medical evaluations. Normal check-ups with doctors often involve a stethoscope and many other contraptions meant to check our overall health. Evidently none of this is happening via the internet, so I wonder to what extent are doctors really able to help virtually? In that regard, I agree with you Brianna that though healthcare is always moving forward in an attempt to increase efficiency, I don't think what is efficient is always what's best.
I also worry about this issue. Aside from the privacy factor, which is obviously a concern, I agree with Kryssonia that the diagnosis itself may be impaired through online medical evaluations. Normal check-ups with doctors often involve a stethoscope and many other contraptions meant to check our overall health. Evidently none of this is happening via the internet, so I wonder to what extent are doctors really able to help virtually? In that regard, I agree with you Brianna that though healthcare is always moving forward in an attempt to increase efficiency, I don't think what is efficient is always what's best.
I think there is much to be seen in the symbolism of this novel, including the parallel the clones have to “designer babies.” Ironically, it is the clones in the novel who are deemed as less than, whereas in real-life it seems the threat of eugenics and designer babies poses a concern that genetically modified humans will create a “higher class” of citizens.
In my view, the fact that academic, athletic and Swedish genes are more highly regarded, just to name a few, is very strange. This inherently places intelligent and athletic individuals over others, as well as assigns a heirarchy to ethnicities. Lastly, with more and more people developing problems with infertility and growing interest in IVF, the possibilities for genetically modified babies are only growing. With this growth, a new market, as insidious as that may sound, may be on the horizon. A eugenics market I fear will be perpetuated by unrealistic ideals.
In my view, the fact that academic, athletic and Swedish genes are more highly regarded, just to name a few, is very strange. This inherently places intelligent and athletic individuals over others, as well as assigns a heirarchy to ethnicities. Lastly, with more and more people developing problems with infertility and growing interest in IVF, the possibilities for genetically modified babies are only growing. With this growth, a new market, as insidious as that may sound, may be on the horizon. A eugenics market I fear will be perpetuated by unrealistic ideals.