The most important question that must be addressed in Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never let me go is Whether or not Kathy H. And her fellow clones are human. The three friends are part of the “donation program” that is common practice in their society. They were clones and were created for the sole purpose of eventually donating their organs to non-clones to allow for the latter’s continued existence. In this novel, it is evident that Kathy H., Ruth, Tommy, and all the other cloned beings are not considered human by the society that they inhabit, namely, England of the late 20th and early 21st century. In order for the donation program to continue as it does, it must be the case that the society either does not consider that clones human, or does not consider them “human enough” to be granted the same rights as non-cloned humans.
As a reader, it is given only Kathy’s perspective, which makes it difficult to know the history of the society, and how the donation program began. Since our understanding is to segregate the parentless, cloned children from the society until Kathy learns this herself. Kathy herself does not explicit question her origin, but rather notes and accepts the mysteriousness of it “There was an unspoken agreement to allow for a mysterious dimensions (Ishiguro, 2006, p. 123).” Much of Kath’s life as a child hailsham is marked by a vague awareness that she does not
…show more content…
Even if the ability to produce artwork is a partial answer to the question, it is not adequate to prevent the death of clones in the novel. In order to determine whether harvesting the organs of mature human clones is morally permissible, we must first define what it mean to be human. Beyond the biological definition of a human as genetically belonging to the homo sapiens species, human being are considered distinct from non-human species in part because of their
In the novel, Never Let Me Go, Kathy is a clone, created to donate her vital organs for human health. However, the school Hailsham was created to collect student’s artwork to show clone’s humanity, to convince others that clones should not have predetermined deaths. Despite Hailsham’s efforts,
Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go follows the lives of narrator Kathy H. and her fellow clones, who are raised for the sole purpose of being made to donate their vital organs when they come of age. In the beginning of his article, “Ishiguro’s Inhuman Aesthetics”, Shameem Black poses the question, “Why is it that the characters in the novel fail to stage a rebellion, protest their fate, or move to France?” (793). This observation recounts one of the most glaring questions the reader faces when exposed to the clones’ situation. The students are given almost full reign over their lives after leaving Hailsham, before they begin their training as carers or start their donations. Given an attempt at resourcefulness, it seems as if it would be easy
Conclusion: “Therefore, in most Human Cloning cases it is morally wrong for that person to get an experimenter to create a Human Clone on their behalf”.
Another issue discussed is that human clones could be used as human farms or organ donors. Unthinkable as it may be, there is a fear that parents may clone their children for “spare parts.” Such a theory is ludicrous because parents of twins do not view one child as a spare part should the other break. She reasons that a clone would be looked upon as equally as a twin.
In this case, this will be the beginning of human degradation because clones will be treated as commodities or purchased products. Although couples commonly have babies for purposes such as improving a marriage or continuing a family name, human clones can possibly serve as savior siblings or replacements. Savior siblings will only function as spare parts, while a replacement child stands in a shadow of their deceased clone. They represent means to an end by being forced into existence for a sole purpose to alleviate pain and misery from the preexisting. In my opinion, reproductive cloning will turn into a game for the countless number of egotistical people that our society obtains. As irrational as this may be, human cells will eventually be sold, so other people can produce babies that resemble past legends, or current superstars, and even dead geniuses. From the article by Philip Kitcher in the Science, Ethics, and Public Policy of Human Cloning book, the author recognized how prevalent cloning will become when commenters ventured how legitimate it would be to clone Einstein. He indicated, “Polls showed that Mother Teresa was the most popular choice for person-to-be-cloned, although a film star (Michelle Pfeiffer) was not far behind, and Bill and Hilary Clinton obtained some support〖."〗^7The quote signifies how cloning will eventually convert into a luxury to please peoples’ irrational means, increasing the chances for people to be equated to their genetic determinism. Kant identifies humans as authors to the moral law because of our possession of human dignity. According to Devolder’s article, “UNESCO's Universal
... then they’ll complete” (282). Kathy finally tries to validate her being a carer by saying, “Of course it’s important. A good carer makes a big difference to what donor’s life’s actually like” (282). In saying this, Kathy believes that she is needed for another reason other than donating her organs. Kathy is challenging her fate as a clone by staying alive under the pretense that she is needed as a carer.
Human nature is built on the foundation of morals, integrity and ethics, therefore we must protect the last shred of innocence us humans possess using strict guidelines called “Human Rights”. If we were able to clone human beings, would our clones be considered human beings? Considering the fact that the clones will possess every quality of a human being, they should be subjected to human rights as well. However, though they contain the qualities of a human being, they also contain genetic information that came from one specific person. If that genetic information belongs to that one specific person, the clone would belong to that one specific person. If the clone belongs to another human being, that would directly conflict with human rights because the clones no longer have the right to be free. To state it in a simpler form, they are simply slaves to their genetic owners. Being under one’s ownership would decrease the value of ones life. Given that the clones would be put under ownership, they no longer practice the right of freedom, and they are no longer equal to any other human being. C...
What is a human clone? It is just a period deferred indistinguishable twin. A clone has the precise DNA of the first. It would be an ordinary infant. A clone of someone in particular would have it's own memory and thought's absolutely free of the first. Clones would be human people and be ensured the privileges of one, under our constitution.
In Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro presents a dystopian society which harvests organs from clones. The clones are presented as nearly identical to humans throughout the course of the novel. They also know the fate that awaits them in the future yet they do not rebel against this system in favor of leading their own lives. Ishiguro, in creating this dystopian society, sets up a distinct foundation of environmental factors, social structures, and complex relationships as a way of developing the main character’s complacency within their place in society.
For generations, the concept of human cloning has been cloaked by a theme of ethical atrocities. For example, in the novel Never Let Me Go, the author, Kazuo Ishiguro, explores the application of human cloning for medical purposes. Within this dystopian setting, human cloning has eradicated most lethal diseases and has extended the human life expectancy well beyond one hundred years. But, the problem lies within how these successes are achieved. The protagonists are clones of specific people and serve the purpose of donating organs when the original person needs them. This creates an ethical dilemma in which the value of human life is compromised. However, this is an exaggerated scenario of one form of human cloning and fails to properly represent the concept. Human cloning is the process of creating an offspring from the DNA of a patient. The DNA is inserted into an unfertilized egg of a woman creating an
In the movie, people inside the facility implanted memories into the clones to make them think that the reason why they’re there is to work until they win the lottery to ‘the island’. However, ‘the island’ doesn’t exist, when a clone wins the lottery, they get taken to a room where their organs or baby will be harvested for the client and they, shortly after the procedure, get killed. Eventually, two clones discovered that they are clones, leading to their escape from the cloning facility and the release of every clones inside the facility to the real world. This film has given the viewers a perspective on what could actually happen if human cloning were to become successful; clones developed feelings and are just like any other human being. So by harvesting the clones without their consents for something the clients need, for example a baby or liver, basically mean torturing and killing a living person, treating the clone like a lab
Last of all, Cloning is not ethical, many religious groups look down upon cloning and think it’s not proper because they think it’s like playing God. Many scientists were mainly thinking about cloning animals and, most likely, humans in the future to harvest their organs and then kill them. “Who would actually like to be harvested and killed for their organs?” “Human cloning exploits human beings for our own self-gratification (Dodson, 2003).” A person paying enough money could get a corrupt scientist to clone anybody they wanted, like movie stars, music stars, athletes, etc (Andrea Castro 2005),” whether it be our desire for new medical treatments or our desire to have children on our own genetic terms (Dodson, 2003).
Some who oppose the idea that the clones are human because they have a desire to have sex, would claim that they are not human because they cannot reproduce. Yes this ture the clones cannot reproduce, but there are also humans in the real world who cannot reproduce, so they depend on other methods like adoption. Humans who cannot reproduce still desires sex, like the clones in the novel that desire sex but cannot reproduce. This idea and the fact that there are real humans who can relate helps prove their humanity and not deny it like some may think.
In “Never Let Me Go” by Kazuo Ishiguro we see cloned human beings that are raised in a boarding school so that they can grow up and become organ donors. The main purpose of these kids was growing up and donating their organs one by one till they finally die at an early age. These kids were not treated as human beings. They were created in a test tube just to be a donor. The main character who was also a donor is the narrator of this story. Life should be controlled by the person that owns it and that person should make decisions how to live and where to live, clones are still human beings with soul and flesh there for they deserve human right. If they cannot get the right they deserve then cloning should be illegal unless there is understandable reason. These kids are raised in a place called hailsham, where they are taken care of so that they can stay healthy but they were not allowed to leave the school and socialize with the world till they turn eighteen and graduate.
Kazuo Ishiguro’s critically acclaimed 2005 Novel Never Let Me Go was influenced by cloning and stem cell research in the late 20th century. Many ethical discussions were raised, and Ishiguro displayed his perspective from his about clones that demonstrate the human experience to the core. The story was adapted into a film by the same name in 2010, directed by Mark Romanek. The novel explores plot, setting, character, literary techniques and themes by telling the story of cloned organ donors, forced to die for the good of humanity, all of which are well represented in the film adaptation.