Wow this story was great, one of my favorite EP episodes, I think.
Lots of food for thought here, especially:
--Dealing with a family member who has suffered brain damage and is functional but is not the same as they used to be.
--If the soul exists, what do the events of this story imply about it?
--In a world like this, no one would ever learn to grieve.
--At what point does one decide to let go of a dead loved one?
--The feelings of a child if they find out by happenstance that they were an "accident" and their parents never wanted them (and in this case want to murder them)
The most interesting part to me was the fact that this practice exists in this society at all. I can totally understand the temptation to bring back a loved one. My stepmom died of cancer about a year ago, and my dad survives her. If the technology were readily available I can see myself considering bringing her back, and I expect it would be tempting for Dad on a much higher degree (they'd been married 25 years, a large fraction of his lifetime). The fact that it makes sense to me scares me, because I do not think that this practice is psychologically healthy for the survivors. I miss my stepmom a lot, but I have grieved and life has gone on. My Dad has done well with himself as well. Even if I didn't use the technology, the fact that it's out there would make it very hard to grieve. "I miss her so much, and I know it's wrong to bring her back, but just imagine, she doesn't have to be gone." Just the name of the company in the story, something like "Grief Abatement Services", really drives that home. Grieving is a natural and healthy part of life, but the country doesn't help you grieve and allow you to heal, it just makes the grief go away. It stunts your ability to mature emotionally. How will you ever learn to let go? How will you ever allow yourself to go?
Besides all that, IMO, even if there is a soul, I don't think the clone has the same soul as the original. Even if she had Sara's memories, she still wouldn't be Sara in that respect. That Sara would still be irrevocably dead, and if you believe in an afterlife, hanging out on the other side. And if there is an afterlife, wouldn't it be awkward to show up and find one or more people who claim to be you but who died at different points in their life?
To me it's clearly murder, wiping NotSara's mind at the end, but as is often the case, law does not keep pace with technology. Until the time it catches up (hopefully accelerated by the news story), this will remain a legal process. I was very glad to see the reporter's role in the story. He was very sympathetic, and even though the story serves it's publisher's purpose to get ratings, I also think that he has performed a vital service to the world to tell NotSara's story in the only public way it will ever be told (her journal will speak to the new Sara of course). Ethically, I think it would've been better if they had just given Sara a new name, found a family that wanted to take her in, somewhere far away from Sara, and let her get a new start. But of course, corporate decisions are more often driven by PR than ethics. If they let her loose, then she can come out years from now and publish a book or some breaking interview, and if that happens, then stocks will plummet, and the shareholders won't be happy. Better to just sweep it under the rug before any more damage is done, and the brief interview that got published will just have to be spun as best as possible "The poor thing was confused and lost, but we made her better".
A damned good story, told well.
And imagine how Sara will feel when she comes back and reads the journal entry from NotSara. Sure, she had no control over how that all went down, but it would be hard to not feel guilty about it nonetheless.
Ethically,