This is a good time to change tack as I think the discussion of credibility and sparseness of information about the overall setting has or should have run its course. Moving on (hopefully):
I have omitted some of astrangerhere's post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrangerhere
First, the book got a lot of attention in the medical realm when it was published, so clearly, bioethicists don't find the question concluded as some of you do. In fact, in a review in the Nursing Standard nursing journal, the editor stated that she "fretted about these children long after [she] had finished reading." (Gray, Jean. Nursing Standard (through 2013); London Vol. 20, Iss. 14-16, (Dec 14, 2005-Jan 3, 2006): 29.)
There is also a great discussion of the novel as abolitionist literature rather than dystopia in the Human Rights Quarterly. I quote some of it here:
I know that for most of us, the question of cloning of this kind is long-since decided. But viewing it as a narrative of modern day slavery gives it a different flavor. Clearly this is taken to an extreme, but the people who will be donors are also forced to provide for the post-operative care and mental well-being of those already undergoing donations.
A few of you have termed this "alternative history" and I think that goes hand in hand with bfisher's comment below. We know nothing about this cloning program except that it started just after the war. We assume that this is WWII. Is it not just possible that more of the Nazi science bled out into the wider world in this version of post-war Europe? We never see mention of any other countries or wars after that.
|
I don't think the various labels used here are mutually exclusive. The book is alternate history, but in setting only. It is also dystopian. And, whether or not it was intended that way it can certainly be viewed as "abolitionist". It appeals to our emotions by making us identify with the plight of the clones and making it very clear that they are fully human. It is also science fiction though the science is so sketchy that some would class it as fantasy, like many but not all dystopia's. The author wanted to write about certain things, and that is what he did. Just about every other aspect of the book is secondary.
The use of the clones as carers is a chilling touch. They are active and willing participants in the whole system. It reminds me to some extent of collaborators/trustees in a concentration camp, though the analogy is admittedly a very imperfect one. The carers also know what is ultimately in store for them when they cease to be a useful part of the system. It is rubbed in their faces every day, yet they use euphemisms like completion and live with it largely without thinking of it. After years of this they even come to welcome their fate.
The ethics of cloning and human experimentation are far from settled. And they never will be. Respect for human rights and human dignity are not universal throughout the world and its cultures. Even Western cultures which purport to respect such things have engaged in atrocities, and not just in the past. Other cultures are based far more heavily on the welfare of the group as a whole rather than individuals. This was brought home to me very clearly recently when reading an article about China's trials of a social credit system. People who conform receive extra benefits, whilst those who do not become second class citizens subject to disadvantage and restrictions. If real concrete benefits such as curing all diseases suddenly becomes achievable but requires human sacrifices, then a ready made pool of victims exist. Even more liberal societies would likely not be able to pass up these benefits, and as a last resort would use their own underclasses or prisoners or the aged. Though more likely they would seek to keep their own hands clean by keeping the atrocities offshore where life is cheap.
And what if products from a single donor could save 2 others? 10? 100? 1,000? 100,000 or more? Where then does morality lay? And does it matter? When the benefits to the majority became large enough morality has a tendency to be ignored.