We the people of the United States are some of the most idealistic people in the world. In a country that was founded solely on principle, it is no wonder that it reflects in the way Americans view, with so much interest, the issues of poverty, disease, and discrimination in order to find possible solutions. Nevertheless, such beliefs have led to a moral quandary when figuring out how to apply our ethical views to foreign policy. The dilemma arises from the acknowledgment that the rights and morals what we feel obliged to respect are not always viewed or applied the same way in other countries.
How should we go about helping others when, as if often the case, help is not wanted? When widows are legally burned at the stake because their husbands died, what action should be taken? When an AIDS victim refusing treatment that could save him due to superstitious traditions, what should we do? The first thing to do would be to locate where we are on the objective-subjective scale of morality. Do we really believe that gender equality, the right to life, and other such ethical concerns are universally right or wrong? If not, then we can stop right here, for there would be no point in supporting these beliefs in other countries. Subjective morality implies that others, even if they hold beliefs conflicting with one’s own, are still right in their own special way. However, if we are to implement policy regarding things morally right and wrong, even in our own country, then we would have to admit to the presence of truth in certain moral beliefs, or else we might as well go our own way and the point of ethical debate and discussion would be nullified. If we do accept the premise that the truths we hold dear are indeed objective truths, then it follows that other countries ought to respect the same beliefs too, regardless of their government, culture, etc. However, it is difficult to reconcile this statement with the belief that the sovereignty of a country is something to be respected. Obviously it goes without saying that one government cannot legislate and enforce the moral compliance of a different nation.
The answer resides in the private sector of a nation. The government, acting as a public entity, has no jurisdiction in the actions and freedoms of a different country, but activist groups in the private sector have (most of the time) free reign to do what they please. Governments represent the legal structure of society, and since two different legal structures cannot interfere with each other’s business without warrant, government involvement is out of the question (excepting, of course, the extreme scenarios when certain governments severely transgress beliefs that are generally held by the world community). Therefore, it would be up to the individuals of society to promote the beliefs and values that they hold dear and believe all else are entitled to – in our case, the right to life, the right to free speech, etc. – which would allow each individual to be held accountable for oneself. The reason I bring this up is because violations of human rights occur worldwide (e.g. North Korea, Venezuela). However, when a particular group advocates change, often they are viewed as an intolerant group of people attempting to impose their beliefs on others (particularly advocates of democracy or nuclear power prevention). Many times, the politically correct concept of multiculturalism seems to supersede the importance of universal human values. However, if we are to live in a world that globally recognizes the truths we hold to be evident, then we need to first realize that the sharing of certain beliefs like free speech is not an unfair act of imposing one’s morals on another, but rather a protection of the rights that all humans ought to have.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Being pregnant... for fun?
According to a Newsweek article, Jennifer Cantor enjoys being pregnant. She says she likes the feeling of growing another life inside of her. However, she only has one child. All the others have been given away. In fact, none of them were even biologically related to her. Cantor is the vessel in which desperate couples plant their lab-fertilized eggs.
The concept of surrogate mothers challenges the very ideas of motherhood. What kind of traditional mother would bear a child for 9 months, and then simply give it away? These and other challenges were brought forward when the technology first became available. However, it has become more accepted as a last ditch measure for infertile couples to have a child. Nonetheless, there are still concerns about the practice.
Each surrogate is usually paid around $25000. This brings up issues we talked about in the beginning of the year: poorer women may be coerced by the high payments. In fact, Newsweek found that many surrogate mothers are the husbands of military men who are trying to supplement the family's income. However, unlike payments for clinical trials, there is much less of an ethical problem here. The technology for surrogate mothers is well-established and safe, so the risks are much less. I believe that surrogate motherhood is an ethically acceptable (although not exemplary) practice.
The concept of surrogate mothers challenges the very ideas of motherhood. What kind of traditional mother would bear a child for 9 months, and then simply give it away? These and other challenges were brought forward when the technology first became available. However, it has become more accepted as a last ditch measure for infertile couples to have a child. Nonetheless, there are still concerns about the practice.
Each surrogate is usually paid around $25000. This brings up issues we talked about in the beginning of the year: poorer women may be coerced by the high payments. In fact, Newsweek found that many surrogate mothers are the husbands of military men who are trying to supplement the family's income. However, unlike payments for clinical trials, there is much less of an ethical problem here. The technology for surrogate mothers is well-established and safe, so the risks are much less. I believe that surrogate motherhood is an ethically acceptable (although not exemplary) practice.
Limited Time Offer: Trade Your Fertility for a Gun Today!
Recently a new government policy has gained popularity in several districts in India. Officials in central Madhya Pradesh state’s Shivpuri district, a bandit infested region, has adopted the policy that attempts to increase vasectomy rates by offering to fast-track gun license applications—essentially asking men to exchange their fertility for guns. Officials view the policy as part of their new plan to “encourage people to have smaller families to ease poverty.” Last year officials offered a financial reward of 1,100 rupees ($27.5) in exchange for undergoing a vasectomy; eight men opted to undergo the procedure. Since the institution of this new policy, over 150 men have undergone a vasectomy, and another 100 are expected by the beginning of April. (AFP, 1).
Immediately, the incentive offered by officials presents multiple ethical issues. What happened to informed consent without undue duress? For men in the region, being licensed to carry a gun is equivalent to being given further power to protect their families from the large number of bandits that inhabit the region, the majority of which carry unlicensed weapons. So, from a theoretical ethics point of view, clearly the incentive prevents the patients from making an informed consent; but what about the perspective of practical ethics? Increased vasectomy rates will aid in controlling the over-population problem, and granting locals the ability to legally hold firearms will help them protect their families from harm. But is it really such a win-win situation, or are there further implications?
(Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080318/hl_afp/healthindiapopulationfamilyplanningguns_080318191739;_ylt=Auff5sE0i0RHO_LSdvQKhJOs0NUE)
Immediately, the incentive offered by officials presents multiple ethical issues. What happened to informed consent without undue duress? For men in the region, being licensed to carry a gun is equivalent to being given further power to protect their families from the large number of bandits that inhabit the region, the majority of which carry unlicensed weapons. So, from a theoretical ethics point of view, clearly the incentive prevents the patients from making an informed consent; but what about the perspective of practical ethics? Increased vasectomy rates will aid in controlling the over-population problem, and granting locals the ability to legally hold firearms will help them protect their families from harm. But is it really such a win-win situation, or are there further implications?
(Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080318/hl_afp/healthindiapopulationfamilyplanningguns_080318191739;_ylt=Auff5sE0i0RHO_LSdvQKhJOs0NUE)
A Pregnant Father
In the most recent issue of The Advocate, a LGBT magazine, Thomas Beatie, a transgender male, published an article entitled “Labor of Love: Is society ready for this pregnant husband?” Beatie was born a female yet decided to undergo chest reconstruction surgery and testosterone therapy in order to become a transgender male. He did, however, decide to keep his female reproductive organs. While undergoing testosterone therapy his body did not produce any eggs, but once he stopped the therapy he would be able to conceive and bear a child.
Because his wife, Nancy, was infertile, the couple made the decision that Beatie would carry their child instead of a surrogate. Although Beatie was physically able to become pregnant, the couple met heavy resistance from society. Beatie wrote, “Doctors have discriminated against us, turning us away due to their religious beliefs. Health care professionals have refused to call me by a male pronoun or recognize Nancy as my wife. Receptionists have laughed at us.” The couple had to go through nine doctors in order to conceive because of the unwillingness of doctors to help Beatie conceive.
Beatie acknowledged the significance of his decision to become pregnant, writing, “Our situation sparks legal, political, and social unknowns.” Many in society do not know how to handle such a situation, and one doctor even questioned whether or not Beatie and Nancy were “fit to bring a child into this world” (Beatie); the doctor was so hesitant that he brought the issue to the ethics board of his hospital.
Beatie ends his article asking his readers to define for themselves what is normal. He will end up with society’s standard definition of a normal family, a mother, father, and child, but in an unconventional way (the pregnancy of the father, not mother). Beatie does nothing ethically wrong in this situation, his desire for a child simply challenges the conventions of society. His pregnancy makes many uncomfortable, just because this is venturing into uncharted territory. Unlike cases of genetic engineering where we can cite specific reasons as to why such procedures should not be allowed, a case like this, where both parents so desperately want a child that they are willing to whatever it takes, is difficult to find reasons to object. After the child, a girl due on July 3, 2008, is born, no one will know that anything out of the ordinary has happened within this family. It will be interested to follow this story to the birth of this couple’s daughter.
Because his wife, Nancy, was infertile, the couple made the decision that Beatie would carry their child instead of a surrogate. Although Beatie was physically able to become pregnant, the couple met heavy resistance from society. Beatie wrote, “Doctors have discriminated against us, turning us away due to their religious beliefs. Health care professionals have refused to call me by a male pronoun or recognize Nancy as my wife. Receptionists have laughed at us.” The couple had to go through nine doctors in order to conceive because of the unwillingness of doctors to help Beatie conceive.
Beatie acknowledged the significance of his decision to become pregnant, writing, “Our situation sparks legal, political, and social unknowns.” Many in society do not know how to handle such a situation, and one doctor even questioned whether or not Beatie and Nancy were “fit to bring a child into this world” (Beatie); the doctor was so hesitant that he brought the issue to the ethics board of his hospital.
Beatie ends his article asking his readers to define for themselves what is normal. He will end up with society’s standard definition of a normal family, a mother, father, and child, but in an unconventional way (the pregnancy of the father, not mother). Beatie does nothing ethically wrong in this situation, his desire for a child simply challenges the conventions of society. His pregnancy makes many uncomfortable, just because this is venturing into uncharted territory. Unlike cases of genetic engineering where we can cite specific reasons as to why such procedures should not be allowed, a case like this, where both parents so desperately want a child that they are willing to whatever it takes, is difficult to find reasons to object. After the child, a girl due on July 3, 2008, is born, no one will know that anything out of the ordinary has happened within this family. It will be interested to follow this story to the birth of this couple’s daughter.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
A Second Look at Designer Babies: Selecting for Deaf Embryos?
The most common objection to genetic screening of embryos is the issue of “designer babies,” creating children with perfect intelligence, height, eye-colour, and so forth. The ethics of such a situation has gone back and forth several times over, but now Tomato Lichy and his wife Paula have now turned this issue inside out – they want a baby who is deaf.
Lichy and his wife are themselves both deaf, and to them being deaf is not a disability but rather a positive trait – something they see as “paralleling being Jewish or black.” In Lichy’s opinion, the absence of hearing opens one to the “deaf culture,” with its own unique aspects and benefits – such as deaf plays. Another deaf British couple added that: "it is important that our culture is passed on from one generation to another ... the threat of losing our culture would be devastating because we have so much to show and to give."
The problem is that a new bill making its way through the British government would prohibit the implantation of embryos which are “known to have a gene, chromosome, or mitochondrion abnormality involving a significant risk that a person with any serious medical condition must not be preferred to those that are not known to have such an abnormality.” The idea behind this bill is simple: to give the child the best chances of thriving and being happy. However, to the Lichys’, this bill is tantamount to racial discrimination.
The problem here is similar to that of whether disabled individuals can attain the same happiness and success that “non-disabled” individuals can achieve. I personally believe that whereas it may be true that disabled individuals may be hindered somewhat in their pursuit of happiness or success, the perceived hindrance is much more than it actually is. People who are able to hear look down on the deaf and imagine how difficult life must be for them – but this is a largely egocentric view; just because we cannot picture life without sound, we imagine that a life without sound must be that much more difficult for others. But, as the Lichys’ point out, deafness need not be a disability, especially since modern society is becoming more and more accommodating to the handicapped, and a second "culture" is opened up to their child.
The other side of this issue is what the unborn child would want for his future. Most people would shudder at the thought of their parents selecting them to be deaf, but again this is because we are accommodated to our current lifestyle – if we were born deaf, we probably would have a significantly different viewpoint. Thus, I think it is difficult to argue that the child would be unquestionably better off being born with or without hearing. As long as the Lichys’ are able to make a convincing case that being born deaf has its advantages – as I think they have done – they should be allowed to screen for deaf embryos.
Of course, this opinion will probably be heavily debated -- other thoughts on this matter?
http://www.tamilstar.com/news/health/article_6314.shtml
Monday, March 24, 2008
Necessary Coercion?
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/21vaccine.html?_r=1&ref=health&oref=slogin
Several possible ethical problems arise. What about the child’s autonomy? Do the parents have a right to choose for their children whether to be vaccinated or not? What if this decision is misinformed? Do health officials – as the experts concerning vaccinations – have the right or obligation to ban exemptions?
I think that such exemptions to the requirement of vaccinations – accorded by individual request in 20 states including
The Good, the Bad, and the Organ Transplant Policies
Although organ transplants have the potential to save countless lives, that policies can appear subjective and organs are constantly in shortage leads to much conflict. Transplant policies often depend on such “requirements” as geographic location, age, expected life span, time on waiting list, quality of life, etc. but the emphasis placed on each of these “requirements” can vary. Furthermore, many of these “requirements” are not quantitative: how does one assign value to someone’s quality of life? Someone’s contributions to society? Someone’s potential future contributions to society? Which “requirements” should be valued most?
In addition to issues regarding transplant policy, the largest problem with organ transplants is the scarcity of donated organs. If donated organs were in surplus, issues regarding transplant policies would likely not exist as everyone on the waiting list would be able to receive the much needed organ. We have already discussed black markets and whether people should be allowed to sell their organs. Should the government, however, be allowed to dictate how people donate their organs? For example, should the government be allowed to require citizens to donate certain organs (i.e. a single kidney) to save people? The government already reserves the right to draft people during times of war and thus somewhat reserves the right to donate lives. Obviously many would be opposed to the government requiring that a person donate an organ but what about required blood donations? Or required bone marrow donations? Should the government provide incentives for people to donate their organs or would such a policy be viewed as coercion?
Although I do not feel the government should be allowed to dictate the actions of individuals, I feel the government should be allowed to provide incentives to organ donors and should be allowed to require annual blood donations. Countless lives could be saved if more people donated blood, and since people can constantly produce blood (unlike organs), they would be losing minimally if the government implemented policies requiring citizens to donate blood.
Source:
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t980618a.html
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Ethical Progress, or lack there of?
Both the international “Declaration of Helsinki” and “The Belmont Report” dictate that a physician may also play the role of researcher so long as that the two roles do not intertwine and that their patient’s best interest are still in mind. Many choose take both of these roles on but how many of them do so ethically? An old article in Time summarizes a Dr. Beecher’s review in the New England Journal Of Medicine of the atrocities in medical research at the time. He states that to most patients the full extent of the research was not explained, in other words, true informed consent was not obtained. In other cases, many patients did not know that they were research test subjects at all. Cases summarized include denial of medication to see the effects of a disease, melanoma cancer transplants to healthy patients, and removal of questionable organs to see if they truly served a function in the body, all on the pretense of benefiting the patient. The case of melanoma was supposed to provide the sick patient with antibodies from her mother, the person to whom the cancer was transplanted, but in the end both patients died from the cancer.
The question is, how far have we really come in the year 2008? Is this still an issue or have ethical boards reformed the practice of medical research to no longer include such problems? Unfortunately, we all know that the answer to this question is not the shining moment in human history. Ethical boards still exist that consistently make sure a doctor’s judgment is truly what is best for the patient and even with that, mishaps still occur, people are taken advantage of, and ethical debate on the topic continues. We still have miles to go before we reach a happy median between medical research and ethical righteousness.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835950-2,00.html
The question is, how far have we really come in the year 2008? Is this still an issue or have ethical boards reformed the practice of medical research to no longer include such problems? Unfortunately, we all know that the answer to this question is not the shining moment in human history. Ethical boards still exist that consistently make sure a doctor’s judgment is truly what is best for the patient and even with that, mishaps still occur, people are taken advantage of, and ethical debate on the topic continues. We still have miles to go before we reach a happy median between medical research and ethical righteousness.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835950-2,00.html
Friday, March 21, 2008
Should Behavior in Children Put Them Under Scrutiny for the Rest of Their Lives?
Gary Pugh, the director of the Scotland Yard and the new DNA spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers urged the necessity of a discussion over how far British officials should go in trying to identify future criminals. Future criminals? That’s right. Children can exhibit behavior at an age as young as five years old that may indicate a good chance of future criminal behavior. Gary Pugh is Britain’s most senior forensics expert, and he recommends that primary school children should be eligible to have their DNA added to a database if they exhibit behavior that indicates that they may become criminals later in life.
Pugh says that the suggested system is in line with criminological theory, which indicates that criminals often start by committing minor offenses that gradually escalate to more serious crimes. Scotland Yard criminologists are confident that they can identify such patterns in children.
This issue is as much a matter of bioethics as civil liberties. It raises the obvious objection that children who are identified as exhibiting these pre-criminal behaviors will be stigmatized for the rest of their lives. Perhaps they might even have “grown out” of their tendencies but may be instead led to a life of crime by a society that expected nothing more of them. Parental consent is an important factor here, and although teachers will have a lot of power to influence the rest of a child’s life, possibly unfairly, Pugh insists that the teachers will shoulder the responsibility of trying to alter the child’s behavior for the benefit of the child and the society at large.
Some parents and teachers feel that the cataloging of these children’s DNA is just the first step towards some sort of terrible futuristic police state. I can certainly understand both sides of the argument but I can definitely see the economic advantage of the plan. Violent crime alone cost England 13 billion pounds last year and preventing crime before it starts by identifying future criminals before they become a problem could greatly reduce both the crime rate and the amount of money poured into the system. But should we be more concerned with the monetary benefits or the societal drawbacks of this system? Only time will tell.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/16/youthjustice.children
Pugh says that the suggested system is in line with criminological theory, which indicates that criminals often start by committing minor offenses that gradually escalate to more serious crimes. Scotland Yard criminologists are confident that they can identify such patterns in children.
This issue is as much a matter of bioethics as civil liberties. It raises the obvious objection that children who are identified as exhibiting these pre-criminal behaviors will be stigmatized for the rest of their lives. Perhaps they might even have “grown out” of their tendencies but may be instead led to a life of crime by a society that expected nothing more of them. Parental consent is an important factor here, and although teachers will have a lot of power to influence the rest of a child’s life, possibly unfairly, Pugh insists that the teachers will shoulder the responsibility of trying to alter the child’s behavior for the benefit of the child and the society at large.
Some parents and teachers feel that the cataloging of these children’s DNA is just the first step towards some sort of terrible futuristic police state. I can certainly understand both sides of the argument but I can definitely see the economic advantage of the plan. Violent crime alone cost England 13 billion pounds last year and preventing crime before it starts by identifying future criminals before they become a problem could greatly reduce both the crime rate and the amount of money poured into the system. But should we be more concerned with the monetary benefits or the societal drawbacks of this system? Only time will tell.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/16/youthjustice.children
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Ok son, meet your mom, your other mom and your dad...
Last month, it was published that Newcastle University successfully created an embryo..with three parents. DNA was taken from a man and two women. The theory behind this endeavor is to eliminate mitochondrial-related disorders (such as epilepsy, liver failure, muscular dystrophy, etc) which the mother passes onto the child. The nucleus from an already formed embryo was transplanted into another donor egg. The scientists claim that the donor egg does not contribute DNA which affects the babies appearance--but what else will it affect? So far only minimal after-effect tests have been conducted in mice.
There are certainly ethical issues to be considered in this case. Should we be manipulating the process of life in such a manner? Since the formation of the first human beings, one sperm and one egg have united to form the zygote which leads to new life. Has this new manipulation of mother nature gone too far? The ethicist Josephine Quintavalle in the article worries that the procedure will be "risky" and is a "step towards designer babies." I too agree that since this is such a novel procedure that the risks will undoubtedly be tremendous. What if the babies are born with extreme deformities? What are their rights? Also, psychologically, I believe that there are issues present. How will a child react to knowing that he or she has two mothers and a father? Will he or she feel like an outcast? Practical implications arise--who is the biological mother? I found this article interesting since its research findings are quite novel and unprecedented. As with any unprecedented process, we must come up with a new protocol. This seems as if it will be easier said than done in this case.
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7227861.stm
There are certainly ethical issues to be considered in this case. Should we be manipulating the process of life in such a manner? Since the formation of the first human beings, one sperm and one egg have united to form the zygote which leads to new life. Has this new manipulation of mother nature gone too far? The ethicist Josephine Quintavalle in the article worries that the procedure will be "risky" and is a "step towards designer babies." I too agree that since this is such a novel procedure that the risks will undoubtedly be tremendous. What if the babies are born with extreme deformities? What are their rights? Also, psychologically, I believe that there are issues present. How will a child react to knowing that he or she has two mothers and a father? Will he or she feel like an outcast? Practical implications arise--who is the biological mother? I found this article interesting since its research findings are quite novel and unprecedented. As with any unprecedented process, we must come up with a new protocol. This seems as if it will be easier said than done in this case.
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7227861.stm
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Sin of Bioethics
From: http://green.yahoo.com/news/nm/20080310/hl_nm/pope_sins_dc.html
The Vatican published a list this past weekend of new sins and “modern evils.” Many focused on the environment, such as not polluting, but the Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti told a Vatican newspaper that he sees bioethics as the most potentially dangerous area for sin. “[Within bioethics] there are areas where we absolutely must denounce some violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments and genetic manipulation whose outcome is difficult to predict and control,” said the Archbishop. The Vatican does not support stem cell research “that involves destruction of embryos and has warned against the prospect of human cloning.” I find it very interesting that it is possible to call areas of bioethics sins, because essentially that is claiming that God deems areas within bioethics as unholy and causing separation from God. By not condoning the destruction of embryos and cloning, the Vatican is saying that God is against these acts. Calling those acts sins makes it hard to argue against for them. Especially if you are Catholic, how can you support these areas in bioethics? And what makes them so wrong that even God is against them? I understand the religious perspective that the destruction of any life is wrong, but I still feel that it is perhaps too strong for the Archbishop to label such acts sins.
The Vatican published a list this past weekend of new sins and “modern evils.” Many focused on the environment, such as not polluting, but the Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti told a Vatican newspaper that he sees bioethics as the most potentially dangerous area for sin. “[Within bioethics] there are areas where we absolutely must denounce some violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments and genetic manipulation whose outcome is difficult to predict and control,” said the Archbishop. The Vatican does not support stem cell research “that involves destruction of embryos and has warned against the prospect of human cloning.” I find it very interesting that it is possible to call areas of bioethics sins, because essentially that is claiming that God deems areas within bioethics as unholy and causing separation from God. By not condoning the destruction of embryos and cloning, the Vatican is saying that God is against these acts. Calling those acts sins makes it hard to argue against for them. Especially if you are Catholic, how can you support these areas in bioethics? And what makes them so wrong that even God is against them? I understand the religious perspective that the destruction of any life is wrong, but I still feel that it is perhaps too strong for the Archbishop to label such acts sins.
A Deadly Diagnosis
In the UK, a baby was born healthy despite the fact that doctors had diagnosed him with a rare brain disorder that could lead to a condition of deafness and blindness. Sounds rather heartwarming until the fact pops up that the doctors, because of their diagnosis, had actually recommended the abortion of the baby. I believe this is an example of doctors stepping too far out of bounds in their practice for two reasons. First of all, doctors in general should not be giving out recommendations of death. It is the doctor’s duty to save lives, not take them. Secondly, physical defects should not be a standard by which to judge the worth of a human life. To say that the infant in the womb should be aborted because he will be born without arms or because she is mentally-retarded is to say that those living today with those defects have a duty to die.
There are a few arguments in support of the doctors’ recommendation. It could be said that the abortion is a matter revolving around the utility of the child, and that the abortion would prevent the child from having to suffer in the world. However, this reason has two major flaws. The first is that humans have no right to presume how much suffering a fellow being is undergoing and then act upon it. One cannot say to the other, “I noticed that your pet has been a great inconvenience to you, so I took the liberty to kill it for you and end your dependence on its needs.” Though others can certainly try to help their neighbors in times of suffering, the decision to act upon it ultimately lies within the jurisdiction of the afflicted only (unless the afflicted has compromised autonomy). The second flaw is that those already living with the handicapped condition cannot be assumed to be in suffering per se; in fact, some probably enjoy life to a greater extent than those who do not understand what it means to handicapped! Their right to live is their own, and ought not to be decided by others – so too, unborn infants who might have the condition should not be aborted because of it.
Another argument that it would be unfair to the parents to have to such a burden to take care of. This is terrible logic. It is a violation of the inherent right to life all humans have to kill someone due to the inconvenience they place on others. Should we kill all the handicapped and elderly? The answer (unless you are Peter Singer) would surely, and hopefully unanimously, be “Of course not.” Almost all of us understand that physical characteristics are no standard to measure the worth of a life.
How then can the doctors be justified in their potentially deadly recommendation? I would propose that they were not at all. Anyone disagree?
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000006639.cfm
There are a few arguments in support of the doctors’ recommendation. It could be said that the abortion is a matter revolving around the utility of the child, and that the abortion would prevent the child from having to suffer in the world. However, this reason has two major flaws. The first is that humans have no right to presume how much suffering a fellow being is undergoing and then act upon it. One cannot say to the other, “I noticed that your pet has been a great inconvenience to you, so I took the liberty to kill it for you and end your dependence on its needs.” Though others can certainly try to help their neighbors in times of suffering, the decision to act upon it ultimately lies within the jurisdiction of the afflicted only (unless the afflicted has compromised autonomy). The second flaw is that those already living with the handicapped condition cannot be assumed to be in suffering per se; in fact, some probably enjoy life to a greater extent than those who do not understand what it means to handicapped! Their right to live is their own, and ought not to be decided by others – so too, unborn infants who might have the condition should not be aborted because of it.
Another argument that it would be unfair to the parents to have to such a burden to take care of. This is terrible logic. It is a violation of the inherent right to life all humans have to kill someone due to the inconvenience they place on others. Should we kill all the handicapped and elderly? The answer (unless you are Peter Singer) would surely, and hopefully unanimously, be “Of course not.” Almost all of us understand that physical characteristics are no standard to measure the worth of a life.
How then can the doctors be justified in their potentially deadly recommendation? I would propose that they were not at all. Anyone disagree?
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000006639.cfm
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Brain Enhancement
This is a response to the NY Times article "Brain Enhancement is Wrong, Right?" professor Zwicker sent us on March 9.
Personally, I do not see the use of Adderall and similar drugs as a form of genetic brain enhancement. I think there is a distinct line between use of drugs like Adderall and Provigil and brain enhancing genetic engineering.
The key difference between, say Adderall use and steroid use, is that I do not think that society is pressured into using drugs like Adderall to perform better, whereas plenty of professional athletes have felt that pressure. Furthermore, I really do not see the abuse of Adderall as something that is extremely serious. Is it cheating? I really don't think so. There doesn't seem to be a discrepancy between the students using Adderall and the non-users, whereas there is certainly a gap when talking about steroids and sports. The same can be accomplished by someone who has good time management and work ethic and someone who takes Adderall. Yet steroids and HGH actually change your body to levels that would be impossible to get to otherwise. When a classmate gets a good grade on an exam or paper, do we instantly accuse them of using Adderall? No. Adderall does not actually modify your brain in any way, it simply keeps you awake so that you can learn more with the same brain. If people want to put in this extra work, let them.
Personally, I do not see the use of Adderall and similar drugs as a form of genetic brain enhancement. I think there is a distinct line between use of drugs like Adderall and Provigil and brain enhancing genetic engineering.
The key difference between, say Adderall use and steroid use, is that I do not think that society is pressured into using drugs like Adderall to perform better, whereas plenty of professional athletes have felt that pressure. Furthermore, I really do not see the abuse of Adderall as something that is extremely serious. Is it cheating? I really don't think so. There doesn't seem to be a discrepancy between the students using Adderall and the non-users, whereas there is certainly a gap when talking about steroids and sports. The same can be accomplished by someone who has good time management and work ethic and someone who takes Adderall. Yet steroids and HGH actually change your body to levels that would be impossible to get to otherwise. When a classmate gets a good grade on an exam or paper, do we instantly accuse them of using Adderall? No. Adderall does not actually modify your brain in any way, it simply keeps you awake so that you can learn more with the same brain. If people want to put in this extra work, let them.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
"Gardasil Boys": Should there be a mandate for the HPV vaccine for boys?
I would have greatly enjoyed hearing about Arthur Caplan’s opinions regarding the mandate of the HPV vaccine. Although I did not attend the lecture, I suppose that he touched upon the ethics regarding the possible mandate requiring all females to have the HPV vaccine in an effort to control cervical cancer. But what about the boys?
The article presented in the New York Times publicizes the potential approval of the HPV vaccine for the male population. But wait—isn’t the HPV vaccine only for girls? Immediately, the images of young girls participating in athletic activities while accomplishing their goals and simultaneously chanting together “One less!” flashes through our minds (see the article for further description). Although Merck has created this image in an effort to market the vaccine, in reality HPV is an STI; in other words, HPV infects both males and females.
So instantly, the issue that Arthur Caplan spoke about arises: Should there be a mandate requiring both males and females to have the HPV vaccine? My response would be no; I believe that any such mandate would violate the issue of autonomy. Some may argue that the vaccine could potentially eradicate cervical cancer and other diseases related to HPV such as genital warts (if it is developed to that point), so wouldn’t you want to eradicate HPV in the same way society is working to eradicate diseases such as polio and tuberculosis?
Yes, I agree that tuberculosis and polio are horrible diseases. Yes, I agree that cervical cancer is a horrible disease. But no I don’t think society has any right to force any individual to take the HPV vaccine. Although these diseases are transmitted through person-to-person contact, the characteristic of HPV that sets it apart is choice. In most cases, you choose to have sexual intercourse, whereas you have no control over whether or not a stranger with a drug-resistant strain of tuberculosis chooses to board a plane to Europe and sneeze on as many people as he can. The right to choose is what sets HPV apart, and it is this same right that we would be violating if we were to institute any sort of mandate requiring individuals to have the HPV vaccine.
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/fashion/24virus.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Monday, March 3, 2008
Removing Life Support: Whose Decision Should It Be?
Samuel Golubchuk has recently been stirring up a great debate between doctors, lawyers, judges, and family members -- all without moving or talking. The 84-year old man was shown to have minimal brain activity when doctors decided to end his life support treatment. However, this sparked protest from his children, who claimed to see improvement in their father, including response to their presence.
The problem is that in Manitoba, where this case is unfolding, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba's policy dictates that physicians have full discretion of when patients should be taken off life-support. Even though physicians are directed to consult the family, they are allowed to stop treatment even if the family disagrees. In some cases, treatment might be stopped immediately. Physicians are not even given any guidelines for determining when life support should be removed, as there are “far too many scenarios and technology is always changing,” according to Dr. Bill Pope, Registrar with the College.
Such a right clearly overextends the power which should be given to any physician. Physicians are supposed to be bound by the principle of beneficence – to do no harm. The decision to end life support should not be in their hands; in my opinion this is tantamount to euthanasia. Ideally it should be the family members or a third party deciding when to remove life support. However, there is an issue in this too; just like the issue of therapeutic misconception, family members may cling to the impossible hope of recovery and refuse to remove life support, diverting space and resources which could be used for other patients. Or perhaps they themselves do not want to be the ones making the decision to end life support. In light of this, perhaps it would be best to not have the decision lie solely in the hands of one party, or to formulate more rigid guidelines for when life support is to be removed.
Source: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-2-21/66337.html
Plastic Surgery in Asia
With the invention of plastic surgery, wealth has increasingly become correlated with beauty. In addition to buying more clothes, better-looking cars, and more “hip” hairdos, people could now change the shape of their chin, nose, and eyes. During the recent years,
Designing babies as blood sources for older siblings
Surprisingly enough I have managed to find a use of genetic modification and designer babies that I find completely repulsive and shameful. A two-year-old British infant by the name of Joshua Fletcher suffers from a severe blood disorder called Diamond Blackfan Anemia. This disease can result in Joshua’ death. Although a matching blood transfusion would save his life, none of his current family members are an appropriate match. His family is begging for an in vitro specialist to create them a child carrying the gene that will make for a proper match to Joshua. Twelve embryos will be created and then screened to find the appropriate target. Then stem cells will be harvested for treating Joshua prior to their implantation into his mother’s uterus.
I find it terrible that a child is being created solely for the purpose of saving his or her brother. It is one thing to modify a child to make them better but imagine this child growing up, knowing that he isn’t loved as much and the only reason he is on this earth is because his older brother needed a blood transfusion? If anything, I think they should just use the stem cells and not actually create a life. This makes the procedure purely medical and allows it serve only as a treatment. Since I don’t consider the stem cells a viable life form, there is no harm done to anyone else and Joshua reaps benefits.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3902407.stm
I find it terrible that a child is being created solely for the purpose of saving his or her brother. It is one thing to modify a child to make them better but imagine this child growing up, knowing that he isn’t loved as much and the only reason he is on this earth is because his older brother needed a blood transfusion? If anything, I think they should just use the stem cells and not actually create a life. This makes the procedure purely medical and allows it serve only as a treatment. Since I don’t consider the stem cells a viable life form, there is no harm done to anyone else and Joshua reaps benefits.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3902407.stm
Psychiatry and Bioethics: A Threatening Discrepancy
A 2006 journal article entitled “When psychiatry and bioethics disagree about patient decision making capacity (DMC),” by P.L. Schneider and K.A. Bramstedt, explains a situation in which an 81-year-old veteran, previously diagnosed with chronic paranoid schizophrenia, was found living alone in his non-functional car and was admitted to the Veterans’ Administration Medical Center. He refused subsequent treatment and was analyzed by two different standards to determine if he was capable of making an informed refusal.
The first standard, and the standard that carried more weight, was the psychiatric evaluation, which based its questions on whether or not this man was a danger to himself and others and whether he could take care of himself on a daily basis. He passed this part of the evaluation. However, the second standard, which was the bioethical standard, asked whether he understood his medical condition and the consequences of refusing treatment. The man did not think that the doctors had told him about any medical condition, he failed to understand what schizophrenia was or what the consequences of this untreated disease were, and he could not give coherent reasons as to why he did not want treatment.
I believe that this situation poses grave medical problems and it highlights one of the key flaws of the health care system. As much as it matters that an individual will not hurt other people and will not immediately die without treatment, I think that the bioethical concerns should be more important that the psychiatric ones. This man, homeless, alone, and reclusive, was not living a healthy life and he was in no position to make medical decisions for himself. I think that we should revise the legal standards for when we can detain people because of psychiatric illnesses and we should include the bioethical concerns in the standard psychiatric questions asked.
The first standard, and the standard that carried more weight, was the psychiatric evaluation, which based its questions on whether or not this man was a danger to himself and others and whether he could take care of himself on a daily basis. He passed this part of the evaluation. However, the second standard, which was the bioethical standard, asked whether he understood his medical condition and the consequences of refusing treatment. The man did not think that the doctors had told him about any medical condition, he failed to understand what schizophrenia was or what the consequences of this untreated disease were, and he could not give coherent reasons as to why he did not want treatment.
I believe that this situation poses grave medical problems and it highlights one of the key flaws of the health care system. As much as it matters that an individual will not hurt other people and will not immediately die without treatment, I think that the bioethical concerns should be more important that the psychiatric ones. This man, homeless, alone, and reclusive, was not living a healthy life and he was in no position to make medical decisions for himself. I think that we should revise the legal standards for when we can detain people because of psychiatric illnesses and we should include the bioethical concerns in the standard psychiatric questions asked.
The FDA: A Complete and Utter Lack of Discipline
In 2004, a Texas urologist named James Vestal was shown to have violated the rules for FDA drug-trials numerous times in his studies for Eligard, a prostate cancer drug. Over the next three years, Vestal continued to perform drug trials until he received a letter from the FDA starting disciplinary action. Even so, Vestal was still not forced to stop running trials, although he voluntarily stopped while in negotiations with the FDA.
Vestal’s violations included using an unqualified and unconfident study coordinator, Jennifer Lawton, whose prior experience was limited to drawing blood and working as a lab technician. Ms. Lawton explained to Vestal repeatedly that she did not feel comfortable carrying out the duties assigned to her and she spoke to a supervisor and even went to the drug company itself and spoke to representatives. However, her concerns went unrecognized and she eventually just left her position. In Vestal’s lab, investigators found frozen, unlabeled vials of urine and two-week old samples that were supposed to be sent out on a daily basis. One of the FDA investigators said that Vestal’s lab was “the worst mess” she had seen in her 12 years as a researcher.
What many people, myself included, are wondering is why does it take the FDA so long to prevent doctors from performing further drug trials blatant violations of policy are discovered? As the article states, “the clinical drug trial industry is poorly regulated and riddled with conflicts of interest, Bloomberg News reported in 2005.” Even our dear friend Arthur Caplan was appalled at the Vestal case and said that the time he was allowed to continue researching was far too long. Although the FDA is trying to speed up the disciplinary process, no one really has a good idea of how many researchers who are being investigated by the FDA are still doing drug trials.
Even after Vestal was demoted to the position of sub-investigator, the FDA still failed to follow up on him and make sure that he was following the rules. This situation screams to me that the current system of drug-trials regulations is heinously overdue for an update. The FDA needs to revamp its evaluation and investigation process immediately. The sheer number of drug trials that are being carried out unsupervised is unconscionable and allows drugs that are potentially unsafe to be marketed on the basis of unreliable trial results.
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a3iFD.rCBpA8&refer=home
Vestal’s violations included using an unqualified and unconfident study coordinator, Jennifer Lawton, whose prior experience was limited to drawing blood and working as a lab technician. Ms. Lawton explained to Vestal repeatedly that she did not feel comfortable carrying out the duties assigned to her and she spoke to a supervisor and even went to the drug company itself and spoke to representatives. However, her concerns went unrecognized and she eventually just left her position. In Vestal’s lab, investigators found frozen, unlabeled vials of urine and two-week old samples that were supposed to be sent out on a daily basis. One of the FDA investigators said that Vestal’s lab was “the worst mess” she had seen in her 12 years as a researcher.
What many people, myself included, are wondering is why does it take the FDA so long to prevent doctors from performing further drug trials blatant violations of policy are discovered? As the article states, “the clinical drug trial industry is poorly regulated and riddled with conflicts of interest, Bloomberg News reported in 2005.” Even our dear friend Arthur Caplan was appalled at the Vestal case and said that the time he was allowed to continue researching was far too long. Although the FDA is trying to speed up the disciplinary process, no one really has a good idea of how many researchers who are being investigated by the FDA are still doing drug trials.
Even after Vestal was demoted to the position of sub-investigator, the FDA still failed to follow up on him and make sure that he was following the rules. This situation screams to me that the current system of drug-trials regulations is heinously overdue for an update. The FDA needs to revamp its evaluation and investigation process immediately. The sheer number of drug trials that are being carried out unsupervised is unconscionable and allows drugs that are potentially unsafe to be marketed on the basis of unreliable trial results.
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a3iFD.rCBpA8&refer=home
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Euthanasia: Humane Treatment for Man and Animals
Euthanasia, or mercy killing, has been a hotly debated issue for several years. We have always greatly valued human life and have always placed it as paramount, superseding the wellbeing of animals and the environment. This great emphasis on the uniqueness of human life largely stems from religious beliefs that man has a soul but other animals do not. Disregarding this distinction, humans are just like animals, and if it is humane to put a suffering animal to sleep, why is it immoral rather than humane to put a suffering person to rest?
I believe that in certain circumstances euthanasia should be allowed. I believe such situations should involve a terminally ill patient whose chance of survival is miniscule and whose death is going to be slow and painful. Furthermore, the patient should demonstrate a clear desire to depart on his own terms to reduce the suffering of his family as they watch him painfully perish. By using medicine to ease the patient into the eternal sleep, the patient controls the end to his life and can depart peacefully rather than violently. Why should someone not have the ability to control their life? Do we have the right to deny someone the right to pass away calmly? Would it not be torture to refuse to humanely end someone’s life and instead make them live through pain and suffering?
I value human life, and I am by no means trying to degrade the gift of life by saying people should be allowed to give it away when they please. As I alluded to, there should be strict stipulations as to when euthanasia would be the humane course of action. What amazes me is that society accepts putting animals to sleep yet bellows against the same practice in humans. Most people would argue that humans are superior to animals, citing our superior intelligence and existence of souls as key distinguishing characteristics. I feel that neither of these classifications, however, should affect the moral implications of euthanasia. Although humans may be more intelligent than animals, claiming that intelligence makes us superior stems from our own biases. In reality, each animal is uniquely adapted, and no one animal can be said to be better than others; such an assertion would be like saying that a specific person is better than all others due to an arbitrary quality. Regardless of whether humans are superior, we still have the same biological functions as animals, and more importantly, we both can feel pain and pleasure. Furthermore, both humans and animals try to avoid pain and seek pleasure. This base similarity would suggest that if putting an animal in pain to sleep is humane, then putting a person in pain to rest should also be humane. The other noteworthy distinction between humans and animals would be that humans have souls. Obviously, if humans did not have souls, humans and animals would be even more equivalent and then euthanasia in certain contexts should be more acceptable. The larger problem would thus appear to arise when assuming humans do have souls. My understanding of the soul is that it is independent from body and mind and that its main purpose relates to the afterlife. Why would having a soul, however, prevent someone from being able to die peacefully under their own desire? One may argue that suicide would be a sin and that sins harm the soul and thus people should be prevented from euthanasia. Who are we to judge, however, what is and is not a sin? Would God not view the person’s situation and recognize his suffering and his family’s suffering? If one wants to argue that suicide is always a sin then is giving up the will to live also a sin? If suicide in certain circumstances (euthanasia) is not a sin, then how is the soul affected? When someone dies, their physical body and mind may perish, but the soul remains unharmed. Therefore, even if a person has a soul, how does that argument suggest euthanasia is inhumane?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)