PART A: The Principal of family determination in organ donation
ABSTRACT:
This article is written by Mingxu wang,, Wen zang, Xueliang Wang. In this article the point which is stressed upon is that wether family should be given the right to give consent for organ donation of a person if he himself has not stated any statement regarding his will on organ donation. Many ethical views of different societies are discussed, especially the Chinese including the Confucians. Some cases are also explained at the end in which the families of the dead are taking decision about the organ donations. Other problems relating to this matter are also highlighted. There are many school of thoughts based on different religions and different societies. In this article the Chinese, Confucians and Mencius are discussed in detail. The Chinese place their families at a very high position. They give a lot of importance and thus during the process of deciding wether to donate the organs or not, the family is given the highest authority. Confucians however not in favour of the process of organ transplantation. Their point of view is different. They like to keep their moral values. According to them the parts of an individual are gifts from their parents and they should not be messed with.They should be left as such. My opinion, after reading this article, is that after a person dies and he has not stated that wether he would not like to donate the organs then the decision should be made by the closest relatives. If they decide in favour of donation then the organs should be donated immediately as it may save someone’s life. Full respect should be given to the dead body and after donation of organs its value and dignity should be maintained. I am in favour of organ donation. According to the health care services after a person dies and he has given consent to donate his organs then he is doing good for the humanity. He has more respect for human lives than anyone else. He has the courage to give his organs to another person and save lives even after his death. We should encourage the relatives to decide in favour of organ donation but do not force them as it is totally their decision.

The Ethics of Patenting Human Embryonic Stem Cells
ABSTRACT:
In this article ethical issues regarding embryonic stem cell patenting have been discussed. There are many benefits of embryonic stem cell patents madically and scientifically however this has caught the attention of various ethical committees. Many ethical controversies have aroused. This article has many sections and in each section various issues regarding an introduction to ambryonic stem cell field, its feasibility, many ethical concerns which were produced, its scientific benefits and the solutions to the problems.
The research regarding the experimentation of embryonic stem cells has its own benefits and consequences. The benefits are mostly related to medical and scientific fields. But it also comes with cerain adverse effects which affect mainly the human dignity. Processes such as cloning can also benefit humans as in donating organs but it also disregards the existence of humans. It devalues them and people will start taking human lives for granted.
In my opinion the embryonic stem cell patenting should be allowed but a strict control and check and balance should be maintained. The laboratories or the institutes which are allowed to experiment on this should be kept under survilance. Specials teams should be set up to monitor their work so that only the benefits are taking place and the adverse effects are contolled.
This research can bring a huge change in the field of medicine.It can generate organs which are not readily available such as heart and lungs and help save lives of many people. It can also help to understand the genetic mutations in humans in a better way.

CREATING A STEM CELL DONOR
ABSTRACT:
This article is written byJeeffery P kahan, Anna C mastroianni. In this article a story is detailed about the Nash family in which they try to produce an embryo which is free of the disease which their child has in order to get the stem cells.
Various ethical issues are discussed which are implicated in this experiment. It also gives certain inmplications at the end and the solutions regarding the problems.
The Nash family wanted a donor for their child and the most acceptable donors are the siblings as they have almost the same genetic makeup. As there were no siblings the parents decided to create one. This is where PGD comes in. This allows the detection of any genetic defect in the embryo at the eight cell stage and prevents the destruction of the fetus. However if an embryo is detected to have the bad gene then it is easier to destroy as compared to the fetus.
In my opinion PGD is a good option, but if the embryo has the wrong gene then I think that it is unethical to destroy it just because it will not be able to donate stem cells. An embyo is not something. It is someone. It is a living thing which is capable of undergoing all 7 life processes. It goes against the moral values of humanity.

BIOETHICS AND THE CONSTITUTION
ABSTRACT:
In this article various claus from the law are discussed regarding biotechnology and its fields. A constitution has been set up to maintain a set of laws regarding the events taking place in the field of biotechnology. There is strong suggestion and check and balance should be maintained. The main people who should be involved in making the rules and regulations for such advanced experiments are the ones who are undergoing or performing these experiments. It also stresses on the protection of prenatal life.
According to the doctors these laws and constitution paly an important role in managing the adverse effects which can occur due to the advanced experimentation.
However some of the laws are still incomplete and most are still not able to decide wether these new advances are useful or not.

DISABILITY RIGHTS APPROACH TOWARDS BIOETHICS
ABSTRACT:
This article is written by Greger Wolbring. In it the main issues regarding bioethics and humanity are discussed. It has highlighted the advances in science and technology and their impact on human lives. There are various thinking of various people. According to some it should be pursued in the sense that it helps mankind. However others believe that it should be abandoned because it disrespects the human dignity.
There are many school of thoughts. On one side there is a belief that mankind should be helped under any circumstances. On the other end there is a thinking that o such procedure should take place which degrades the existence of mankind. To most people science and technology are the fields which help in decreasing the sufferings and disabilities and impairements.
In my opinion biotechnology is a very advanced field and it should be allowed to perform experiments which help mankind and decrease their sufferings. Also those people who are suffering from disabilities should stand up for these kinds of procedures as it will help them in the future, maybe not their future but their new generation can benefit from this.
PART B:
Article 1:
George Annas, a well-known scholar at Boston University discusses major issues regarding health policy in his book “Worst Case Bioethics”. The most disturbing thing to annas is intrusion in privacy and freedom. The first part of the book discusses the situation of 9/11 attacks, sufferings and bio-terrorism (means terrorism which involves the use of natural weapons).In the second part, annas focuses on imperfect ethics like lawsuit dealing with the safety of drugs and abortions etc. He has also discussed Terri Schiavo’s case, her family wanted to end that misery of hers by letting her die, because she was in a state of coma for almost 15 years. Annas has also covered the topic of protection given to patients in hospitals in his book. The third part of the book emphasizes on human rights like if we keep them in mind and apply in our lives, we can get rid of all such situations. He also discussed the recent pandemics like H1N1 and HIVand these diseases are spreading rapidly day by day and yet their treatment has not been found. In the end of the book, he has discussed his worst case scenario and that is genetic genocide. He has abhorred the genetic engineers who experiment on humans and clone human babies. He worries about the issues that are raised in public and their involvement in those issues can direct to a big problem because sometimes these kind of activities lead to the violation of human rights.
Annas has criticized the use of phrases like “war on cancer”, “bio-security” and etc. because we need to sit and talk about these matters. He said that worst case scenarios should not overpower our decisions. A number of other scholars have discussed fear of exaggerated fear. They say that not bothering the climate changes, high prices can lead to nothing else but devastation, but Annas says that only plausible situations ought to be discussed.
By the end of the book, George Annas concedes that probability matters a lot when it comes to judging worst case scenarios .He said that when an individual is suffering from something we give him a lot of attention but when the number of those individuals increases we lose our interests. We need to change that attitude of ours. He has also said that on those issues which policy should act more efficiently responses less.
In the last, I would like to say that we should keep in my mind that other people are also human beings and they also have the rights. We should stand for our right .I agree with George Annas that cloning human beings and other animals should be banned because the people who do such kind of activities are the real terrorists and they are a big danger for human beings and I think our policy needs to work a bit more efficiently and should consider all cases equally.
Article 2:
A well-known writer Michael L.Gross wrote a book “Bioethics and Armed Conflict” in which he has discussed those scenarios on which no one wants to talk about. Michael’s book moves around four principles that are self-governing, right to live, self-respect and utility to analyze moral predicament of armed conflict. Gross has not defined himself in “Bioethics and Armed Conflicts” and his book appears to be as it is written by a rule-utilitarian. A number of other rule-utilitarians have written about many international issues. However, Gross’s work is very different from other rule-utilitarians because he has justified the principle of right to live self-ruling and the necessity to establish ethical values of the state. The main vigor of the book lies in gross’s compliance of presenting sufferings, triage and treatment of patients on the basis of equality. He has carefully discussed these four principles in the most worrying situations. Gross never supports torture but he says that sometimes this torture can be tolerable but it is only in the mere cases. Gross says that state represents collective interests of the community. This book is bold in the way that it discusses the issues like the rights of patients, triage and it also covers that patients should be treated equally by medical practitioners.
Gross detests the guidelines for the medical practitioners in war given in the health policy statements by the worldwide organizations. These policies ought to be amended as soon as possible Michael L.Gross says that one must shift his personal interests and rights of oneself to the collective interests of the whole nation. He emphasizes again and again that the traditional guidelines given to the medical practitioners are highly unacceptable.
The medical ethics practiced in peacetime are not applicable in wartime. If torture is a military necessity then medical practitioners should cooperate with them. Gross has infused his study with the reality. He says that right to live should be given to soldiers. Many different problems rise during the warfare, these problems should have a specific policy which should be helpful in every way. Policy makers need to work really hard on this matter.
After reading this book, I have come to a conclusion that dignity and sovereignty should be the chief principles of any human being. The policies of worldwide organizations need to be amended because somehow they are deteriorating human rights. Gross has underscored the issues of medical neutrality, triage and protection of patients and I agree with the points he has raised in “Bioethics and Armed Conflict”
Article 3:
Different epidemics and pandemics that occur throughout the world offer the massive and gigantic challenge to the medical fields especially in the area of ethics. This article mainly throws light on the influenza pandemic involving the United States of America. Influenza pandemic caused and still causing destruction on large scale that is morbidity and mortality and deaths per year. However this part of the article mainly focuses on the single population that is the pregnant ladies and mothers which are affected by the influenza that is caused by H5N1 virus. The article focuses on identifying and recognizing the potential risks and risk factors that are associated with the treatment of this sensitive population having influenza by the health care systems and policies. And also the use of the resources and its limitations that is when a pandemic occurs then how is it possible to use the available resources, also ethically how the resources should be used among the communities for the purpose of the betterment of the individual use. In this article the important ethical challenges are reviewed by the author who should be considered important and concerns should be implemented in order to make a good use of policy and measures to control the disease and to reduce the rate of mortality and morbidity and morbidity caused by this pathogen and a evil of the medical world. The author concludes in this article that the infectious diseases such as influenza and other diseases in the form of an outbreak offers the medical society including doctors, health practioners, nursing staff, epidemiologists etc an open challenge which could be devastating and alarming for them. But then different arguments and question arises that how could it be possible to make use of the available resources and data in ethical meaning and also effectively to control the devastating and destructive pandemic that is the potential risk to the pregnant ladies which have a variety and a vast area of problems that have to be dealt with competent and effective methods and techniques. Because this area is very sensitive and it requires a lot of attention. However it would be easy to deal with the existing problem when the exact norms and dilemmas would be recognized especially through the effective and ethical health policies and then used effectively to control the problem. In order to take such effective steps it is better to have a close look and to observe the health care systems. Their strategies, planning, methodologies and techniques should be viewed closely in order to control infection and management. Thus by these steps it would be easy to boost up the existing control measures for infection. All the populations within the community are important however pregnant population should be given an important consideration and special attention in this regard. The author claims that health care systems should enjoy their rights to use the resources available in healthy and effective way. They should be used in the ethical way in order to ensure the rights and privileges of the healthcare systems. One should take effective measures in order to attain the better control of the health trauma or threat such as influenza pandemic. The pregnant population is a very sensitive population and if healthcare practioners are employed to root out the potential risks and threat to this population. Then it would be able for them not only to consume this knowledge effectively and efficiently on this scale but also it would be possible to take care of other populations in the society as well. In my opinion it is better not to concentrate on one single population. Because the right of availability of resources should be applicable to every individual in the community. The principle of acceptance and easy availability and within reach of every individual should be applied to whole community in general. One population should not be the focus of attention because it would also be the violation of the ethical principles when applied to the availability of resources. As described in the article the pregnant ladies were being the focus of attention so they should not be considered primarily important as neglecting other populations would harm the community and the society.

Article 4: In the present day world mortality rate has been increased due to organ failure or organ death. To overcome this dilemma the procedure for organ transplantation has been introduced in the medical field which saved the life of many human beings. However it has been observed that there is an increased demand of organ transplant as compare to its supply. Thus different views regarding this scenario and gap have been introduced which can be applied to meet this demand. One of these procedures is presumed consent for organ retrieval which means that when a dying person is being admitted that its organs can be retrieved from his body for the purpose transplant with the effectiveness of the fact that consent for the procedure has been taken by the patient. This however is not acceptable on ethical backgrounds because it has much legality regarding this issue. The author in this article is criticizing the concept of presumed consent which has been taken on the ground of the explicit or informed consent. It means that as informed consent is the one which is based on the procedure explained to the patient or its relatives and then its consent has been taken in accordance with that consent. Thus if majority of the people are giving the informed consent then it can be applied to the minority for the presumed consent. The author wants this to be explained to every person in the society that presumed consent is unethical and is not justified on basis of ethics because even if the brain death or the cardiac death has been occurred then organs should not be taken out from the bodies because they have not been informed about it in their conscious life. Thus it should be thrown out of our society and should be considered as a crime in the law. The author has concluded in the article that presumed consent is not at all ethical and it should not be practiced in the medical field because it’s against the law. The author justifies that even if this is considered as lawful then even then it should not be practiced as it does not hold the truthful statements and is against the rights of the human beings. The second issue that the author is concerned about is the fact that the person who is being considered for the organ retrieval should be informed well about the stuff and any kind of stuff should not be hidden from him. This is the basis for the ethical issue that forms the fundamentals of the organ retrieval law. I agree with the author in all sense because in my opinion it’s a crime that the individual is not being well informed about the procedure that is going to be applied to an individual. The majority with the process of the informed consent does not have the right that this should be applied to the minorities that are not being informed and thus they are being considered for the purpose of presumed consent. Actually it is in other words can be an act of selfish trials that is applied to meet one’s own need that is the need of the organ retrieval. Thus on the ethnic grounds it should be discontinued and should not be practiced because the organs are the personal property of one’s self and they should not be taken because it is criminal.

PART C:

THE MAIN ISSUE
Cloning of the sheep made a scientific break through that resulted in the creation of many new problems and new benefits. Cloning of humans from human cells also has its own problems and benefits. Some people find it totally against the human dignity while others find it beneficial for mankind. Should human cloning be allowed or should it be banned from all over the world. RESEARCH SUMMARY
In this research many articals were read and their abstracts are written. In these abstract a brief overview is given about what each author thinks about human cloning. At the end of each abstract my brief notes are also given which convey my opinion in relation to the article.
Most of the media has conveyed cloning as a benefit to humans, however it comes with its own hazards.
Abstracts of the scholarly articals are also stated above and the opinion of some common people is also given. SUMMARY

The summary of all these articles basically comes down to human morals. All humans should be respected whether dead or alive. They should be given the full liberty to decide what is going to happen to their body. Regarding organ donation, it is definitely of benefit to all the humanity but it should not be forced upon anyone. Those who want to help should give consent for donation before their death. If not given then the family has the right to decide. Regarding the stem cells and embryonic stem cell transplant, it is an advanced procedure and comes with a lot of benefits and ethical tissues. Benefits can not be overlooked but the adverse effects which lead to destruction of the human moral values and the degradation of human dignity. These procedures such as cloning are useful in a sense that they decrease the suffering of mankind and help the disabled but they also decrease the value of a human being. A set of firm laws should be made which allow these experiments only to be undertaken for the good of mankind.

CONCLUSION
My conclusion is that no one should mess with the nature. Every one has their own time to die and every one is born as planned. No one should have the right to mess with the human lives. If cloning is started then human lives will not be valued. People will replace their own relatives with their clones. There will be an increased burden on the economy of the country and it will also result in an increase in the consumption of the natural resources.

References:
Chapman, A.R. (2009). The ethics of patenting human embryonic stem cells. Kennedy institute of ethics journal, 19(3), 261-288.
Collins, M.(2009). Consent for organ retrieval cannot be presumed. Springer HEC forum, 21(1), 71-106. DOI 10.1007/s10730-009-9088-7.
Farrel, R.M. & Beigi, R.H.(2009). Pandemic and influenza: an opportunity to reassess maternal bioethics. American journal of public health, 99(2), 231-235.
Harbour, F.V.(2008). Bioethics and armed conflicts: More dilemmas of medicine and war. Ethics and international affairs, 22(2), 225-227.
Kahn, J.P. & Mastroianni, A.C. (2004). Creating a stem cell donor: a case study in reproductive genetics. Kennedy institute of ethics journal, 14(1), 81-96.
Schaub, D. (2004). Bioethics and the constitution. Public interest summer, 156, 51-70.
Wang, M., Wand, X. & Zhang, W.(2008). The principle of family determination in organ donation: the application of Confucian ethics. Springer HEC forum, 20(2), 183-196. DOI 10.1007/s10730-008-9069-2
Weiner, J.B.(2011). The fear of exaggerated fear. Health affairs,30(4), 796-797.
Wolbring, G. (2003). Disability rights: approach towards bioethics. Journal of disability policy studies, 14(3), 174.