Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Never Let Me Go: the organ donation debate continues

By Evelyn Tsitas - posted Wednesday, 30 March 2011


The movie has already prompted renowned ethicist Margaret Somerville to write that issues in the disturbing plot might be closer to us than most of us realize.

Ishiguro's novel was published at a time when infertile women in their 40s began sourcing eggs from young women and when parents of sick children turned to IVF to create perfect "saviour siblings". As a society, we've only got better at using people's bodies for our own gains; look at Nicole Kidman's recent announcement of a new baby via what she dubbed "a gestational carrier."

Such commercial surrogacy illustrates what Somerville calls "convergence" -interventions that become possible only through the combination of separate technologies. Ishiguro's clones are the result of "genetic, reproductive and organ transplant technologies". Somerville writes: "Each technology, taken alone, raises serious ethical issues, but combined they raise ethical issues of a different order, as we see in Never Let Me Go." (themark.com, Nov 25, 2010)

Advertisement

Accordingto The Independent on Sunday, the "superb" film adaptation of Ishiguro's literary novel demands that the decision not to award it the Booker Prize in 2005 "should surely be revisited." However, one of the judges, Rick Gekoski, told the newspaper that he has no intention of seeing the film. "It's too creepy", he says, "It's effective but a film about organically reared children farmed for their organs? At my age? No." (Jan 30)

The trouble is that avoiding the issues won't make them go away. Somerville rightly points out that this new movie depicts "a morally compromised world not unlike our own."

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Evelyn Tsitas works at RMIT University and has an extensive background in journalism (10 years at the Herald Sun) and communications. As well as crime fiction and horror, she writes about media, popular culture, parenting and Gothic horror and the arts and society in general. She likes to take her academic research to the mass media and to provoke debate.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Evelyn Tsitas

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Evelyn Tsitas
Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy