Nov 10 McGee – Ch 5 (Genetic Approaches to Family and Public Health)

I agree with McGee’s stance on the caution with which we should proceed while pursuing genetic testing technologies. In making these tests available, they should not be dispensed without provision of adequate information as regards risk and probability as well as accuracy of the tests themselves. I think the public often knows too little to make informed decisions and simply operates on gut instinct combined with small bits of often excessively biased information. To say that genetic testing ought not be allowed at all makes little sense based on the amount of crucial, perhaps life-saving, data one can obtain from these tests; now that the technology is available, we have a mechanism to proceed but not enough significant rationale to bring an end to genetic testing. Yes, results of genetic tests could lead to decisions to abort fetuses or to pressure children and mold them into “perfect babies,” but if we were to eliminate all genetic testing for these reasons alone, we could miss the opportunities these tests create, such as better preparing for or treating children born with genetic disorders. Guns also have the power to destroy life yet we continue producing these weapons because of their potential for defense, their potential to save lives. Likewise, just because genetic testing offers the opportunity to be used for destruction does not mean it must be a means to such ends. We can continue using genetic testing for the purpose of helping people and maximize efforts to prevent its use in the destruction of human life.

Nov 5 McGee – Ch 1 (Landscape of Genetic Technology)

The questions of eugenics and sperm banks raise for me a question of natural selection which McGee touches on slightly here. I do not doubt that as humans, we act like all other animals and choose mates based on some perceived ‘fitness advantage’ based on good looks or intelligence or prestige which we somehow think make them our ideal companions; we do this just as the peacock chooses her fat-feathered friend, etc. Yet, ugly people have sex too! Someone I might see as completely unintelligent or unattractive might seem to be your ideal companion for reasons I deem unfathomable. If then we start limiting which of our offspring live based on the ideals we hold about what their genetic constitution ought to look like, do we not do someone further down the line a disservice? After all, is not one man’s trash another man’s treasure? In addition to ethical objections based on rights to life in general, society has somehow deemed eugenics to be a bad thing – would we risk falling into a form of eugenics if we allow abortions based on genetic ‘flaws?’

Nov 3 McGee – Epilogue; Pennock – Virtuous Scientist meets human clone

The fact that cloning a sheep caused extreme public upheaval and massive media attention suggests that despite scientific arguments in favor of cloning, this may not be a path to pursue. At some level, society must allow morals and ethics to drive laws and regulations. We have, for example, decided that rape is wrong and ought not be done and rapists ought to be punished if discovered. However, those committing rape do not always see this as an immoral or wrong act but rather a right for them to relieve their sexual desires with another person. How is it that society can decide rape is wrong and punishable and thereby remove the right of people who disagree to continue raping? Somehow enough people agree that rape is inherently wrong that they feel entitled to remove the right to rape from the individuals who do not share their view. In the same way, if enough people feel that cloning is inherently wrong (even if this be for religious reasons, which Pennock so quickly tosses to the wind) then should they not also be able to remove the right to clone from individuals who do not share their view?

Oct 29 Trosko and Deb & Sarda

As wonderful as it may seem to build a moral code for humankind as I read Trosko to suggest, I think this is quite an unrealistic fantasy. He mentions religion extensively as it shapes the moral and ethical foundations of many people’s views. Yet, he suggests that because religious affiliation varies so widely across human-kind, we should abandon it as our guide to bioethics and adopt a new code for determining the moral values shaping the biological nature of humans. I think that the key products of religion are the moral and ethical beliefs which shape the nature of our actions. And furthermore, to suggest that simply because people participate in and practice a wide spectrum of religions indicates we ought to abandon these faiths for one unified human morality merely imposes a new sort of ‘religion’ upon society. The fact that many moral values across the diverse religions are the same or similar indicates we have already reached a point where most of humanity already agrees upon some general code of ethics so why would we need to create a new worldwide biological morality when we can just recognize the shared values and respectfully disagree with one another about our differences? To think that everyone will agree with a new ethical code is pure fantasy and to enforce it a potential infraction against one of the very codes of freedom it might seek to endorse.

Oct 27 Kass – Ch 5 (Cloning and the Posthuman Future)

I cannot help but wonder as to the scientific research on nature vs. nurture which could develop as a result of cloning. Kass mentioned it briefly in his discussion of people wanting to clone themselves or professional athletes, etc. I think it an odd sort of argument in favor of cloning to assume that we can scientifically reproduce an exact duplicate of another person. Even ‘identical’ twins are not the exact same person because they have different life experiences and interests. Cloning would do this to an even greater extent as time will have elapsed between the individual growing and developing and the clone being produced and beginning its growth and development. Suppose, for instance, that Magic Johnson wished to have a clone of himself. If this clone were not trained in the art of basketball as it developed, it would not learn the same skill set which distinguishes Magic Johnson as an exemplary basketball player and thereby not be anything like Magic Johnson despite sharing an exact replica of his DNA. I could continue with further examples, but I suppose that my point is clear enough; cloning could lead to many scientific studies about the nature of nurture.

Despite the previous paragraph, I agree one-hundred percent with Kass that cloning ought not be allowed throughout human society. As he lays forth the arguments for this quite well, I feel no need to repeat his work. I share his opinion primarily for religious reasons but acknowledge that others may need to hear convincing arguments which go beyond religion if they do not share my particularly faith-filled upbringing. Kass kindly provides such reasons as well while not failing to articulate the religious notions behind resistance to cloning. Should Kass present religious reasoning about scientific research though? Yes; as religion so significantly shapes morals and ethics, I feel some of Kass’ strongest arguments concerning bioethics will be those which appeal to religious ideals.

Oct 22 Kass - Ch 4 (Age of Genetic Technology Arrives); McGee – Ch 2 (Hope for Genetic Cures)

I really like Kass’ statement on page 133; “It turns out that even the more modest biogenetic engineers, whether they know it or not, are in the immortality business, proceeding on the basis of a quasi-religious faith that all innovation is by definition progress, no matter what is sacrificed to attain it.” I have mentioned before that I feel we are unduly striving to prolong life on earth when we should perhaps exert efforts elsewhere. If we find a cure to cancer, we will undoubtedly find some new malady killing us in turn. Humans are not meant to live forever here on earth. Biogenetic engineers are looking for ways to genetically alter individuals making them more fit for their environments and therefore prolonging their lives. While this would indeed be a feat, we must pause to ask whether it is truly a good idea to progress in such a manner or if the short-term benefits might be insignificant compared to the long-term effects of permanently altering a genetic sequence. One of the most controversial long-term possibilities is for genetics to spiral from recognizing and treating particular diseases to removing or repairing the genes for potential diseases or else destroying fetuses with ‘bad’ genes. As McGee points out on page 34, “proactiveness with genetic disease is not the same as maintaining a balanced diet. It is interventionist medicine, good old repair, only extended to diseases you do not yet have.” We have to keep technological advancement in check and question whether we should proceed for the sake of science or hold off on moral grounds. As Kass says on page 135, “everything depends on whether the technological disposition is allowed to proceed to its self-augmenting limits, or whether it can be restricted and brought under intellectual, spiritual, moral and political rule.” If we can manage to cautiously proceed with genetics technology, constantly questioning the ethical dilemmas of each advancement, I think we stand to benefit humanity while limiting potential for moral disaster.

Oct 20 Kass - Ch 3 (Meaning of Life—in the Laboratory)

Kass raises very important issues within this short chapter. I find his question of respecting life particularly interesting. If in respecting life we feel that human beings, or fetuses or blastocysts depending on their stage of development, should not be destroyed yet we also believe that using extra blastocysts for experimentation disrespects life, does it not stand to reason that either all blastocysts formed through in vitro fertilization processes must either be raised to fruition or not fertilized at all? In this regard, I believe I agree with Kass and morally go even further to discard in vitro fertilization altogether on the basis of not technologically orchestrating the glorious blessing of joining together an egg and sperm cell to form new life. Kass’ statements as to the moral questions arising from keeping all fertilized cells alive further drive me to this conclusion, especially those concerning women selling their bodies to grow the fetuses. As to supporting government funding of this controversial research, I again agree with Kass’ arguments about not using taxpayers money to fund something which they deem morally unethical. Of course, if this were the case, we should also significantly reduce military spending, etc. If a political leader or party has a clear platform on funding this type of research and they are voted into office, then according to our political ideology they have authority granted by their constituents to approve government funding for things many people may deem morally unethical. This brings us to minority rights though, because in the case of a majority, how are you to uphold the basic rights of those in the minority; if a majority of the population deems slavery acceptable, how are you to grant the minority opposing slavery their basic human rights to life and liberty? Clearly the system thus has some flaws which we must overcome. Kass tries to bring to light the inherent rights of in vitro blastocysts such that we might recognize some form of regulation to override majority rule and protect a minority which has absolutely no way to speak for itself. I agree that this is indeed a crucial issue and deserves the attention of our legislators.