Normally I detest the Washington Post for a variety of reasons, but their coverage of the latest advance in stem cell research is extremely interesting. Apparently a Harvard research team has discovered a way to convert ordinary skin cells into stem cells. The implications of this development speak for themselves. Notably, the new method is actually an improvement over previous work with stem cells because the stem cells are now an exact genetic match for the donor -- which is of supreme importance when we're talking about growing replacement organs and such. Before, making an exact genetic match involved turning one's cells into an embryo and then harvesting the cells -- essentially starting to grow a clone and then harvesting its stem cells. This is both very complicated (and therefore expensive) and morally grey, if not reprehensible.
Furthermore, this advancement is a huge victory for science because it takes stem cell research out of the moral ambiguity realm and therefore out of politics -- for the most part. Senator Frist, you really screwed yourself this time. Frist made the mistake of deviating from the President's stand on stem cell research about a month or two ago. If he would have just waited he could have been pro-stem cell research without pissing off the majority of the hard right wing -- pretty much all the "religious right". Anyway, recent polls have shown that Frist doesn't have much of a chance for his presidential ambitions, and I can't say that I mind. The really important thing here though is that stem cell research can now move forward unimpeded and we no longer have to worry about sacrificing innocent lives to work on cures for other at-most-as-innocent-if-not-less lives. And I think that is a very good thing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Well, this means that stem cell research is only "out of the great area" if the means are the only ethical "grey area." If the end is also, then this doesn't really solve anything.
Thats true. I'm not sure how the ends can really be seen as an ethical 'grey area' unless organ donation and synthetic antibiotics are morally grey. I suppose there are those that take that stance, such as Scientologists. But as far as mainstream opinion goes I think it is out of the grey area. Maybe it shouldn't be, though -- I'll be the first to say that popular support does not equal moral righteousness. I welcome any argument of how stem cell research in general may be immoral.
Well, I am not a Scientologists, but I do think it is extremely morally suspect and requires a far greater deal of thoughtful consideration than it is usually given. I also think that organ donation and synthetic antibiotics require that same thoughtful consideration that has – quite conspicuously – been missing. Improving the quality of and increasing the longevity of human life aren’t necessary moral goods, they are contingent moral goods. I don’t think that, as far as I am aware, a good case has been made about what factors would provide a moral application of this technology and what factors would not.
For something to be considered "morally grey," it seems to me like there would have to be some kind of weighing between positive and negative aspects. If there were no negative aspects, example things such as organ donation and synthetic antibiotics (or at least none that I'm aware of), I'm not really sure how the moral argument applies.
Also, I think we can ignore the opinions of Scientologists on medicine as safely as we can ignore the opinions of Hare Krishnas on religion. Hey-O! But seriously, no one takes them seriously.
J Morgan, I am open to the idea that there may be negative considerations of the medical science in question. If you believe there are some, could you please share some? You say that the consideration we ought to have is missing. So please, give us something to consider with some reasons why you believe these advancements to be anything other than positive.
Well, this has been a long-running discussion between redhurt and me, first on his thread about cloning and then about medical technology in general. I think my argument is a little obscure there because it is segmented a bit too pointed, but I think you can probably get the idea of what I am arguing.
To give a synopsis, though, I think that medical technology and the application thereof needs to be couched in a larger understanding of what it means to be human. Our understanding of what is pathological has greatly expanded (this is called medicalization) as the focus of medicine has shift from a curative aim to one of biological redefinition. As our technological sophistication progresses, we are increasingly able to define human existence and its purposes apart from biological limiters. As such, what is considered to be legitimately medical has broadened to include anything that limits a human person. Medical technology, then, disconnects us with our bodies which have historically been united with our existence and a great source of meaning. In so doing, it erodes those meaning-giving parts of human existence that are, admittedly, difficult, such as pain, suffering, futility, and, ultimately, death. This furthers the project of medicalization by treating our bodies, once a source of great meaning, as enemies to fulfillment. The problem, then, with the use of technologies such as those mentioned so far in this thread, is that they are not developed in a paradigm where we, as a society, forego medical intervention because it compromises our humanity. We have no way to allow for suffering or “unnecessary” death as part of a culture of honest humanity, because we have made longevity and strength absolute goods in a culture of desperation and artificial strength.
Here, then, are some quotes from the previous discussion on redhurt:
“I think most discussions about medical ethics overlook the axiological value and significance of weakness, imperfection, temporality, suffering, and death. As social conceptions of progress become more closely identified with technological advancement, and as those aspects of the human condition that are unpleasant but historically valuable begin to be avoidable, they begin to loose their significance; eventually reduced to an inconvenient biological oversight that we see as our duty to rectify. In medicine right now, there is a debate about whether or not to pathologize aging! Such a discussion is the result of making life and health a good end of itself without reference to the larger spheres of living. At what point do we, as a society, agree that, despite the possibility of rectifying some inconvenient biological limiter, we will choose to accept it as a meaning-giving part of being human?”
“Allowing certain technologies to be developed and/or used signals a shift in what our human community is and is not all about. See, this isn’t really about survival (statistically, we are surviving at an unprecedented rate as it is); this is about redefining human existence as something not dependent on or limited by biology. Survival may be a right, but self- and communal- redefinition masked as survival is not.”
“I am arguing, at least in part, that, because we don’t have a cogent paradigm in medicine by which to account for purposes and ends, and thereby justifying the reduction of suffering and the extension of life, the entire project of trying to do so is severely undercut. I am also arguing that part of the reason no such paradigm exists is because what we are doing now is not really medicine in any historic sense, but is biotechnological redefinition.”
So, despite the fact that jackscolon couldn’t come up with any negative aspects in what probably amounted to about six seconds of critical investigation, I think there are some things that we need to contend with before we can move emerging technologies out of the grey.
J. Morgan- allowing me six seconds for critical investigation is generous...
A quick question- Do you draw any kind of line between the augmentation of normal human ability vs. the correction of human defect in terms of its effect on humanity?
I've kinda been kicking some thoughts around in the brain (not for a full six seconds though) and I want to understand your opinion a little better before I put anything up...
“Do you draw any kind of line between the augmentation of normal human ability vs. the correction of human defect in terms of its effect on humanity?”
Sure, although my line is not hard and fast. I think, for instance, setting a broken bone, eliminating an infect are completely legitimate uses of medical technology. I think cosmetic surgery, organ transplants, or gene therapy clearly fall on the other side of the line. There is, however, a broad grey area that includes anything from psychopharmacology to cancer treatment that I don’t know what to do with.
I am not very well versed in the language of therapy vs. enhancement (corrective vs. augmentative), so I am a little unsure how to answer your question. I hope that has helped.
Post a Comment