Shedding Sunshine on Informed Consent

Uncategorized

Informed consent is a legal agreement between a health care provider and a patient, in which patients are supposedly given an active role in decision-making processes regarding their course of medical treatment. One element of this doctrine is that patients make their decisions voluntarily, without coercion. What many patients don’t realize, however, is that they are often left in the dark when given information about their course of treatment.

Is true informed consent an oxymoron? If patients were really informed about all the risks of a medication or procedure, how many would consent? Take, for example, this ad for Seroquel XR, an antidepressant. Two thirds of the commercial details side effects. Do patients really pay attention to all of this information?

In Barriers to Informed Consent, Lidz et al. describe the reasons why patients want to be informed of some aspects of their medical situation. Some patients assume that their physicians will do what is best for them and just seek information so they can understand their role in treatment. Others wish to be informed to feel connected to the process or to veto a specific aspect of a physician’s recommendation. There are also some patients who want to play an active role in their treatment process and request information in order to participate in decision-making. These patients are the most discerning health care consumers. Lidz et al. also examine physicians’ attitudes regarding informed consent. Physicians’ knowledge, expertise, research, experience, and the opinions of colleagues go into the medical decision making process. When a physician makes a decision regarding another person’s health, it is assumed that they made the best possible decision for this individual. Therefore, when patients don’t consent to their decisions, they often view this lack of consent as a sacrifice to the patient’s health.

What is not explicitly stated is how physician’s values and religious and political beliefs come into play when discussing informed consent. As mentioned earlier, one facet of the informed consent doctrine requires patients to make their own, independent decisions. However, it is nearly impossible for physicians to give patients a totally unbiased perspective when presenting their options for treatment. Some procedures are extremely controversial, in which case physicians may have strong grounds to dissuade a patient from choosing a specific course of action. Abortion and male circumcision are examples of procedures in which informed consent could become a problem. A physician who is firmly against these procedures is likely to emphasize the health risks and potential for complications. The way that information is expressed to a patient prior to treatment has a significant impact on their decisions. As mentioned earlier, there are varying degrees to which patients want to be involved in their medical situation. When patients are not thoroughly invested, wanting information merely to veto or as a courtesy, they are more likely to be swayed by the physician’s beliefs. Therefore, the informed consent doctrine fails to prevent physician bias from clouding patient’s decision-making ability.

Physician bias also comes into play when physicians favor certain drugs and medical devices due to gifts or other benefits they receive from companies. In an effort to prevent drug companies from wrongly influencing the minds of physicians, the Sunshine Act was recently passed. This act mandates manufacturers of drugs and medical devices in national health care programs to report both monetary and non-monetary items of value that are given to physicians. This information is then posted on a publicly accessible website.

While efforts like the Sunshine Act may help shed light on some factors that influence physicians’ attitudes, the inherent bias due to more personal, fixed beliefs still remains. While certainly useful, the informed consent doctrine fails to take into account the complexities associated with medical decision-making, disregarding the human quality expressed in both physician and patient attitudes that complicate the process.

 Works Cited

Charles W. Lidz, Ph.D., Alan Meisel, J.D., Marian Osterweis, Ph.D., Janice L. Holden, R.N., John H. Marx, Ph.D. and Mark R. Munetz, M.D. “Barriers to Informed Consent.” Arguing About Bioethics. Ed. Stephen Holland. London: Routledge, 2012. 93-104. Print.

American Medical Association. “Toolkit for Physician Financial Transparency Reports (Sunshine Act). “ ama-assn.org. Web. 9 Feb. 2014. <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/advocacy/topics/sunshine-act-and-physician-financial-transparency-reports.page>

Shifting Expectations and Adding Prescriptions

Uncategorized,

It is completely undeniable that the life of a student in the past twenty years has changed drastically. Students are expected from a young age to be receiving perfect scores, excelling creatively and athletically while holding leadership positions. Majority of children are expected to attend a four-year university and graduate with a “stable” respectable job. The only way to obtain this job, as socially preached, is to get above average grades while balancing a social and extracurricular life. Quite simply stated, the expectations for a student of any age have changed.

Dr. Diller, author of Running on Ritalin, claims that the rise to the use of Ritalin can be attributed to a variety of non-medical factors. During an interview with PBS, Diller explains how the shifting culture surrounding young people has changed the understanding of managing behavior. He attributes the increasing pressure to be above average as a young person, matched by parents working full-time and a decrease in parental discipline with the rise of Ritalin prescriptions.  Next he discusses the flaw in diagnoses, as there is no concrete test for ADHD but rather a series of rather subjective tests usually administered by a general physician. He additionally attributes the rise in Ritalin usage to general awareness. ADHD is an easily identifiable disorder. As diagnosis increase and education law changed to include services for those with ADHD simply checking for ADHD has become more popular.

Throughout the interview Diller touches on the moral aspect of Ritalin usage. He talks about how naturally any parent would want the best for their child. At times there may be a child who is excelling outside of school but simply cannot focus. Other times children can be seen as hyper or unable to pay attention. However, parents want to do all they can to help their children excel and many times this includes the addition of Ritalin. He ends the discussion by stating the ethical dilemma he faces as a doctor. For certain patients he understands that possibly changing classroom size, disciplining methods or family habits could address some of the concerns that parents have however, the solution quickly shifts to medication. Family life, parenting, temperament and learning environment are not typically taken into account before prescribing Ritalin to improve concentration.

The stigma surrounding Ritalin, I feel (especially in college) is quite small. Partially because many who take Ritalin take it for purely medical reasons but also because it is so frequently used. Many college students take Ritalin when they simply cannot concentrate, or seek a specific diagnosis to gain regular access to this type of drug.

I question this on a deeply ethical level, for isn’t this use (and possibly abuse) shockingly similar to the use of steroids? Why are athletes so widely criticized for using performance enhancement drugs when it is acceptable for college students to use similar aids? Is there a difference between the two? Should one usage be more criticized than the other? Do we deem the use of Ritalin (or Adderall)  as cheating or taking the easy route?

I personally see difficultly in drawing the line between the two. While I don’t feel as strongly about the usage of Ritalin or Adderall in relation to a performance enhancement drug, I also can’t articulate and argue the difference.

Sources:

“Interview with Dr. Diller.” PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2014.

Parker, Harvey. “The Ritalin Explosion.” PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2014.

Trudeau, Michelle. “More Students Turning Illegally To ‘Smart’ Drugs.” NPR. NPR, 5 Feb. 2009. Web. 06 Feb. 2014.

Sandel: The Argument of Perfection

Uncategorized

In Holland’s­­ Arguing About Bioethics, within chapter 8 The Case Against Perfection, Sandel discusses the double-edged sword associated with cloning: where, or rather if, to draw a line between medical restoration and genetic enhancement in other situations. Specifically, he focuses on enhancement of muscles, memory, height, and selecting the sex of a child.

To begin with, Sandel reviews genetic therapy involving the restoration and strengthening of muscles. While the idea may have initially stemmed from the need to prevent natural and disease caused muscle deterioration, it is easy to see the potential misuse of the gene therapy in professional sports, giving some athletes and unfair advantage over others without the enhancement by playing God. Huard, an M.S./Ph.D, reasons that while muscle enhancement could be seen as an unfair advantage in a competitive field, muscle and bone enhancement through gene therapy “the potential clinical applications of this technology” lends itself to a multitude usages in the medical field (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgm.344/full#sec1-5).  There are, however, some drawbacks to such an enhancement, leading to a deceased functioning of some hormone glands associated with muscle growth in offspring, seen in mice.

Similar to muscles, memory also focuses on the idea of an unfair advantage sought, whether it be before an exam in school or any other academic situation. Sandel again brings up the idea of an unfair advantage, but instead of focusing on how to level the playing field and enhancing everyone, he asks the reader whether the dehumanizing of mankind should be aspired to. Englbart, however, argues that the “augmenting of human intelligence” is not dehumanizing, but rather a leap along the path of evolution, not dissimilar to humans discovering fire or creating weapons to hunt (http://dougengelbart.org/library/engelbart-archives.html). Through the several articles incorporated, as of yet, there are no known drawbacks or side effects of the memory enhancement therapy, other than playing God.

The argument for height, unlike muscles and memory, has been ongoing for several decades, as the Human Growth Hormone (HGH) has been in use for over half a century. While initially used to aid the growth of children deficient in the hormone, some parents average or even taller children, have requested this hormone pharmaceutically for the extra few inches. Sandel questions why we are building a society in which parents feel “compelled to spend a fortune to make perfectly healthy kids a few inches taller” (Holland 96).  Dr. Gill cites endocrine, ethical, economic, and equity reasoning as to why GH should not be used, explaining that the hormone can lead to diabetes (less than a 2% chance), involves “playing God”, is extremely expensive, and that there are more notable causes to focus on rather than height (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2065932/). Overall, if one can privately afford GH treatments, there are no significant repercussions and the needs for cloning to obtain tall offspring is not needed.

Finally, Sandel examines the ethicality of determining a child’s sex through the use of cloning. The arguments surrounding this claim fall parallel to the claims that encompass the abortion debate, should we have the ability to play God and decide who gets to live and who gets aborted?

Throughout Sandel’s various arguments in regards transhumanism, the only point that lacks an infallible counterargument, thus far, is the concept of “playing God” by reworking certain aspects of the human genome on a large scale.

There are several premises associated with playing God.  First, God exists. Second, God is all-powerful and all knowing. Third, humans should not attempt to play God. However, a certain loophole exists within the second premise. If God is indeed all knowing, wouldn’t He know of mankind’s attempt to clone, and then, wouldn’t He prevent this from occurring if it was bad?

Of course there are counter-counterarguments, such as cloning being a test from God, etc. And then another can of worms is opened.

Genetic Moral Enhancement

Uncategorized

Genetic engineering is undoubtedly a sticky subject, one which raises immediate images of designer children, ultra-athletes or scholars handpicked by their parents to be the best. Most often when we discuss the bioethical nature of genetic engineering, we think of a child’s sex, eye color, height, intelligence. However, we must not forget that a person’s physicality is not the only thing determined by their DNA; many of our behavioral tendencies root from the depths of our genetics as well.

Here is where the question of genetic engineering becomes even trickier to answer: what if we could control for morality in our children? What if human offspring were kinder, more empathetic and compassionate, not because of any lesson taught to them by their parent, but because of a pre-selected genotype predisposing them to these desired qualities? Would this be permissible, or perhaps even obligatory, in modern society?

Faust suggests that as there is a genetic basis to most, if not all, complex human behaviors, especially personality. While environment also has something to say in the development of a child, there is no escaping DNA. With this in mind, she suggests that eventually, it might be possible for couples to select a haplotype predisposing their child to moral behavior: a MoralKinder haplotype (MK+). While this would not guarantee moral behavior in all situations, there would be an increased and statistically significant chance that the child would behave better in most.

Sandel cites many problems with genetic engineering and cloning: lack of autonomy for the individual whose genes are being altered, commodification of human traits, the threat of discrimination in society. It seems, though, that most of these arguments apply to physical genetic engineering. Could we call it dehumanizing if we selected for a haplotype which would increase our children’s humanity? Would the moral problems associated with physical genetic engineering not be at least partially dissolved if genetic moral enhancement were implemented?

Perhaps this issue is not as clear-cut as it seems, though. For some, this seeming increase of humanity appears as a threat to free will and human nature. Sandel points out that what we see as perfecting human nature “threatens to banish our appreciation of life as a gift, and to leave us with nothing to affirm or behold outside our own will” (103). Thus the possibility remains that by attempting to whittle down one end of the behavioral spectrum, humans are narrowing down their natural capacities as opposed to becoming the “masters of nature” (Sandel 103). Additionally, some argue that adding ease to the process of learning morality may devalue it.

However, Faust argues that selecting for MK+ would improve societal morality on the whole and would not remove the free will of the child. A child with a high moral capacity is like a child with a high intelligence quotient; she is not forced to make a certain, arguably better choice, but will certainly be more likely to. And again, a higher IQ does not devalue mathematical or literary abilities in our society; on the contrary, these gifts are praised.

While genetic moral enhancement is still both controversial and fully hypothetical, it provides interesting insight into the direction which genetic engineering might move. Perhaps we can use such an example to look at the ways in which the science of genetic engineering could improve our society, and use this to consider the morality of this issue.

 

Works Cited

Sandel, Michael J. “The Case Against Perfection: What’s Wrong with Designer Children, Bionic Athletes, and Genetic Engineering.” Arguing About Bioethics. Ed. Stephen Holland. London:   Routledge, 2012. 93-104. Print.

Faust, Halley S. “Should We Select for Genetic Moral Enhancement? A Thought Experiment Using the MoralKinder (MK+) Haplotype – Springer.” Should We Select for Genetic Moral Enhancement? A Thought Experiment Using the MoralKinder (MK+) Haplotype. Springer Science, 01 Dec. 2008. Web. 04 Feb. 2014.

 

 

Moral Champions

Uncategorized, ,

The opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics is upon us. This Friday, Sochi, Russia will display its culture and the athletes of the world, to TV sets everywhere.Picture 11

These will not just be any athletes, but the best of the best. Each country will send its top athletes, already national champions, to compete for the top honor of Olympic Champion.

There is more pressure than ever for the sports stars, as now their audience has suddenly grown, not just because of the access from the global stage, but because of the pride and expectations added by each native person taking interest to their country’s representatives for these various events every four years.

One of those expectations is that on top of being super athletes, they are just like you and me, with stories and hardships. Further, it is expected that no enhancement drugs or cheating is done, so we can honor our representatives based on natural talent found in each of our nations.

A moment of analogy which showed just how important “real” people are to the audience occurred during the ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. A beautiful little girl sang in the enormous stadium, angelic and magical, with perfect live sound. However, there was tremendous outrage by the media and public when it was revealed that the girl was not in fact singing herself, and was selected for her preferred cute looks, while the true little girl singing was hidden backstage somewhere, only her voice being admired.

This speaks to our human nature of admiring those who have it all- “beauty and brains” or “a triple threat”.  However, we hate just as much when we are decieved, or learn that they in fact are not like that naturally. Such scandals are coupled with dissapointment that comes with realizing such things are not possible without cheating of some form. We are offended by this branch of injustice. According to the ethical stance of the philosopher Kant, decieving someone (lying to someone) is a way of using the decieved as a means, not as a person. To Kant, the only thing good in and of itself is a good will. This is something that does not depend on the good it brings out, or consequence. It follows that instead of an outcome, we must focus on the intention of performing an act to decide whether or not it is moral.

However, intention is hard to gage as individuals cannot ever truly reveal what they were thinking on the inside, with the full trust of others. Also, everyone will have their own views on which intentions are good. One may think that money is a great motivator while the other disagrees.

While this is a larger problem in ethics, a troubling hint of glossing over the true problem arises in Sandel’s article, “The Case Against Perfection”. Multiple times he argues that enhancement should not be an issue if everyone has access. However, it is very unlikely that equal access would ever be a real thing. Even the most basic needs, such as food and water, are not equally accessible to all humans on our planet today. It is immature of the author to gloss over inequality as a reason that would actually be a problem in attaining perfection. In fact, I believe it is the very reason that should be talked about by ethicists as it could be the strongest realistic case against enhancement.

I believe that a better thesis and prompt for this author is found in the middle of his text, which states, “Under restrictions…do any ethical issues remain that should give us pause?” In this case, he can better support the negative  by using his points of availability and safety. This stretches to affirm good intentions in such  controlled manners, but an even deeper feeling of uneasiness remains. In the case of athletes, if every single olympic competitor was given access to cheat, it could be fair under Sandel’s quick premise,  but definitely unjust to those deceived in actuality. It would be unjust to the audience and kids dreaming to hone their skills, and achieve similar accomplishments on their own.

Works Cited

Kant, Immanuel. “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.” History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. New York: Oxford UP, 2012. 313-52. Print.

Sandel, Michael J. “The Case Against Perfection: What’s Wrong with Designer Children, Bionic Athletes, and Genetic Engineering.” Arguing About Bioethics. Ed. Stephen Holland. London: Routledge, 2012. 93-104. Print.

Transhumanism: What is it? and Why don’t people like it?

Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

 

In “Human Genetic Enhancements” (2012), Bostrom lays out some of the arguments in favor of genetic enhancements.  While he explicitly states that his arguments draw from the movement known as transhumanism, he does not respond to criticisms of transhumanism itself as much as he does to arguments against genetic enhancements.  In this post, I will outline some background information on transhumanism and an interesting debate between Francis Fukuyama and Bostrom.

According to Max More, a prominent supporter of transhumanism, it is a group of ideas that “refuses to accept traditional human limitations such as death, disease and other biological frailties” (from McNamee & Edwards 2006).  It does not restrict itself to genetic engineering, but also space colonization, artificial intelligence, etc.  (Bostrom gives some interesting information in a few YouTube interviews, such as this one). It can take one of two forms: strong transhumanism or weak transhumanism.  Both strong and weak transhumanists advocate using technology to enhance humanity (e.g. in appearance, intelligence, lifespan).  Strong transhumanists differ in arguing that we should use technology to become a new species (McNamee & Edwards 2006).

Because of the radical nature of its stronger supporters, transhumanism seems to have a rather dystopian connotation.  But the basic aim, to improve the human condition through technology, is not so far-fetched.  After all, improving technology is an important part of public health.  This is salient if one considers examples like sewage systems and clean water supplies (McNamee & Edwards 2006).  By and large, though, the term ‘transhumanism’ is more concerned with higher-level technology like genetic engineering (2006; Bostrom 2012).

Criticism of transhumanism has been vociferous.  In a 2004 Foreign Policy report, eight  public intellectuals wrote on what they considered “the world’s most dangerous ideas” that will have to be confronted in the future.  Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist, wrote his article on transhumanism.  He gives two main arguments against transhumanism.  The first is that our political right to equality presupposes that there is a fundamental human essence that transcends sex, class, or race.  That is to say, all members of the human species are afforded equality.  In a sense, the post-humans that transhumanists advocate for throw a wrench in our conception of equality by changing the fundamental human essence (cf. Bostrom 2012 112-113).

The second argument against transhumanism is that it seems to gloss over the two-sided nature of human characteristics.  “Our good characteristics” Fukuyama says, “are intimately connected to our bad ones” (2004).  What is seen as a negative trait in one context could be a positive one in another.  For instance, we may consider violence and aggression a negative characteristic in itself, but it is useful when we need to defend ourselves.  The biggest risk, he says, is that we do not really know how intricately these characteristics are intertwined. Transhumanists take it upon themselves to determine what is good or bad in a human.  We do not know the results of meddling with our biology in such a way (Fukuyama goes so far as to say that we cannot know).

In response to Fukuyama’s article, Bostrom (2004) argues that the Fukuyama’s argument is flawed.  He argues that evolutionary biology has revealed that there can be no distinctive “human essence”, because the human gene pool is not fixed.  Even if there were a human essence, he argues that this is not an argument for post-humans contradicting the basis to equal rights.  On his view, transhumanism does not advocate for creating beings that lack moral agency (or somehow transcend it), which he considers more fundamental to our rights than our essence.

Works Cited

Fukuyama, Francis. 2004. “The World’s Most Dangerous Ideas: Transhumanism” Foreign Policy 144: 42-43.

Bostrom, Nick. 2004. “Transhumanism: The World’s Most Dangerous Idea?” Foreign Policy.

Bostrom, Nick. 2012. “Human Genetic Enhancements: A Transhumanist Perspective” in   Arguing About Bioethics, ed. Stephen Holland. 105-115. New York: Routledge.

McNamee, S.D. and M.J. Edwards. 2006. “Transhumanism, Medical Technology and Slippery Slopes”, Journal of Medical Ethics 32.9: 513-518.

The role of equal access in genetic enhancement: A contradiction.

Uncategorized, , ,

In “The Case Against Perfection: What’s Wrong with Designer Children, Bionic Athletes, and Genetic Engineering”, Michael J. Sandel asks us as readers to consider the inherently present repercussions of allowing genetic enhancement to run rampant in our society. While many of his arguments and counterarguments are sound, I found there to be a glaring inconsistency that arose in Sandel’s contemplation of the relevancy of social structure and class in genetic enhancement.

In his section on memory enhancement, Sandel brings up the point that many people worry about the danger of cognitive enhancement leading to two different classes of human beings: those with access to these enhancements, and those without. He even goes so far as to posit that this unfair distribution might, if the cognitive enhancement were to become evolutionary, lead to the division of humanity into two subspecies – enhanced versus natural. This argument is quite an interesting one, as it asks us to picture a futuristic world far removed from our own. Sandel asks “is the scenario troubling because the unenhanced poor would be denied the benefits of bioengineering, or because the enhanced affluent would somehow be dehumanized?” (Holland loc. 2999). He illegitimizes this as a core argument for the immorality of genetic engineering by saying that “the fundamental question is not how to ensure equal access to enhancement but whether we should aspire to it in the first place.” (Holland loc. 2999).

Later in the essay, in his argument on our societal meritocracy, Sandel argues that genetic enhancement would ruin our perception of giftedness as just that – a gift that we are fortunate to have, and would instead encourage the mindset that our new genetically-enhanced abilities are entirely our own, leading us to feel no sense of gratitude for our abilities or sympathy toward those people without our abilities. The contradiction upon which this post is centered stems from Sandel’s claim here that “A lively sense of the contingency of our gifts – a consciousness that none of us is wholly responsible for his or her success – saves a meritocratic society from sliding into the smug assumption that the rich are rich because they are more deserving than the poor.” (Holland loc. 3241). The rather obvious implication here is that genetic engineering would lead to a stratification of society based on the “haves” and the “have-nots”. This dualist idea of “the rich and the poor”, those who can afford genetic enhancement and those who cannot, is strikingly similar to the argument he presented earlier and promptly dismissed.

While both of these arguments speak to the importance of class consideration in the development of an educated opinion about the ethicality of genetic enhancement, I am troubled by Sandel’s dismissal of the first point while taking seriously the second, as the two are very closely related: he uses the same foundation of argument, that genetic enhancement polarizes social structure, to make each point. Why is there a discrepancy in his consideration of these two points? He struck the first point from his core argument because the question on which he was focusing was not “how to ensure equal access” (loc. 2999), but in the second point, which is mentioned near the very end of the article, he points to inequality of access as a serious ethical consideration. It seems to me that, for the sake of consistency, Sandel needs to reconsider his view on the importance of ensuring equal access to genetic enhancement. Is provision of equal access a part of the fundamental question of the morality of genetic enhancement?

 

Sandel, Michael J. “The Case Against Perfection: What’s Wrong with Designer Children, Bionic Athletes, and Genetic Engineering.” Arguing About Bioethics. Ed. Stephen Holland. London: Routledge, 2012. Loc. 2935-3263. Kindle Edition.

Did Hollywood actually get it right?

Uncategorized, , ,

Hollywood has developed an entire segment of their industry to futuristic movies that focus on the advancement of technology in relation to how we live. These movies demonstrate the seeminglessly integration of technology into our daily lives but always raise a critical dilemma of something going wrong. While these movies are almost always set 20 to 50 years in the future, the ending has always made me and I am sure many others contemplate: Could this really happen? How would we develop this technology? Should it even be acceptable? Hollywood films are often superficial and unrealistic, but they may have caught onto an arising moral dilemma. Try watching movies or tv shows like GATTACA, The Island, Captain America, The Tomorrow People, or Arrow and think about the implication if our society was like theirs.

island tomgat captain arrow-The-CW-poster-stephen-amell

An Author’s Opinion on Genetic Enhancement and Genetic Engineering:

Technology and science are always on the verge of a new discovery all of which have the potential to alter society. In the essay “The Case Against Perfection: What’s Wrong with Designer Children, Bionic Athletes, and Genetic Engineering,” Michael J. Sandel discusses the moral implications of genetic enhancement and engineering and delves further to examine how the human condition plays a part. Sandel goes on to explain how it is acceptable to use gene therapy and drugs to restore age appropriate health, but the moral quandaries develop when the therapies are utilized to achieve above normal health (Holland 94). Society attempts to use “the language of autonomy, fairness, and individual rights” when grappling with issues of genetic enhancement and genetic engineering (Holland 93). However, Sandel believes that such language only touches the surface and the real questions are about “the moral status of nature and about the proper stance of human beings toward the given world” (Holland 94). One of Sandel’s examples is genetic enhancement, which shows how the technology developed to treat a disease can spiral into common use.

Currently at the University of Pennsylvania, researchers have developed a synthetic gene that has shown to repair and strengthen muscles in rat and thus has possible human applications (Holland 94). This research is being done in hopes of curing immobility of the elderly or muscular dystrophy. Like with any research there are alternative and not as altruistic motives for which the research can be used, and so it is easy to imagine that professional athletes would capitalize on this technology. But if there were no ill effects, unlike with steroids, and it was widely available, then logically the genetic enhancement should not be banned (Holland 94). However this leave us with athletes who were already gifted with above normal strength now possessing superhuman strength. Sandel reasons that there is not an unfair advantage because the genetic enhancement just augment an athletes naturally endowed ability (Holland 94). Thus it cannot be said that enhanced genetic differences undermines fairness unless natural genetic differences also undermines fairness.

Hollywood’s Portrayal:

Let’s consider two different films, both about superheroes: Captain America and Arrow. Both successfully use genetic enhancement  for strength; however, the result and long term implications are drastically different. In Captain America, the scrawny 90-lbs Steve Rogers is pumped full of drugs and put in a machine which permanently transformed him into a brawny 200-lb man of pure-muscle. As the film tells, scientists, part of the secret division of the Army, were seeking to create a “super-soldier” and Rogers was their test subject. Rogers uses his newfound abilities for and intrinsic bravery to risk his life to try and save the day. Rogers is a morally uplifting “good guy.”  On the other hand, in the TV show Arrow, Cyrus Gold is injected with a serum that alters his DNA sequence to result in enhanced strength, durability, and stamina. Gold is evil and seeking revenge, for he is stealing and kidnapping people in order to make a group of super-villains like himself. Gold is a killer and definitely not someone who you want on your bad side. The videos below demonstrate the two ends of the spectrum that Hollywood has on muscle enhancement. It is clear to me that Hollywood, like the rest of the world, is not sure if it is morally sound to enhance humans, for it seems to depend on the intentional, moral, and true nature of the person being enhanced.

So should we only let the “good guys” be enhanced? And what if they become “evil killers”?  Who gets to judge who and what makes a good person versus a bad person?

Captain America scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijrtROGpqJ8

Arrow scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfmrdbU3AoM

Sources:

Mone, Gregory. “Muscles in a Vial: Can a Single Shot Turn You Into Captain America?” LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 23 July 2011. Web. 02 Feb. 2014.

Sandel, Michael J. “The Case Against Perfection: What’s Wrong with Designer Children, Bionic Athletes, and Genetic Engineering.” Arguing About Bioethics. Ed. Stephen Holland. London:   Routledge, 2012. 93-104. Print.

“Wikia.” Arrow Wiki. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2014.

Is Perfection the Trend?

Uncategorized

 

Taken from http://www.stylist.co.uk/life/how-to-make-the-perfect-baby
Taken from http://www.stylist.co.uk/life/how-to-make-the-perfect-baby

Most people are trying to reach perfection, but is it possible? The definition of perfection from Merriam-Webster is something that cannot be improved. But how does one know that there isn’t any improvement that can be made? Some people believe that genetic engineering can lead to perfection of humans. However Michael J. Sandel believes that designer children doesn’t drive to mastery but destroys “an appreciation of the gifted character of human powers and achievements”(Holland 97).

When parents are able to choose their children’s genes, they might want their children to be intelligent, good looking, tall, healthy, and even a specific gender. From the parents’ eyes the children might look perfect to them, but by looking at the society as a whole, designer children creates a greater potential for disparities between the rich and the poor. The rich families have the access to enhancement technologies, while the poor just maintain the natural way. If the enhancement is passed down the generations, the poor and the rich eventually become two different kinds of people. However, aren’t we trying to solve the wealth gap? If designer children actually occurs, it probably will just keep on widening the wealth gap. Ultimately, “the economic divisions may grow into genetic divisions”.

Sandel mentions that if the society approves that designer children is considered as enhancement to the society, everyone should have the access to it. This indeeds creates a problem that everyone is going to be similar. For example, if the society believes that taller people are considered more perfect than shorter people, parents are going to spend money just to make their children a little bit taller. But is it necessary to waste that money just to be like everyone else. If everyone has the access to it, the society altogether becomes more enhance and perfect than ever. However, this then raises another question, who will do all the physical labor jobs, when everyone is smart and isn’t willing to hard labor? The society eventually will collapse. Everyone just wants to be on the top of the social pyramid.

Genetics is just one part of us. The environment also plays a significant role. This means that our genes expression can be influenced by environment. For instance, the genes might be turned on or off depend on the environment, which therefore influence how humans develop. As a result, even though parents might be able to decide what they want their children to be like, it might not always have the exact same outcome they want.

The main concern I have is should we strive to perfection and what exactly defines as perfect? Everyone has a different concept on perfection; some might think that having good health is perfect, while others believe that health, appearances, and intelligence make perfection. Moreover, since everyone has different idea of a perfect child, it is going to be hard to regulate the biotechnology such as screening embryos or preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Personally, I believe that having a good health is enough. Therefore, I accept the use of biotechnologies for medical needs instead of something beyond health. It’s because nobody can become perfect

 

References:

Foster, Helen. “HOW TO MAKE THE PERFECT BABY.” Stylist.co.uk. Web. 1 Feb. 2014. <http://www.stylist.co.uk/life/how-to-make-the-perfect-baby>

Abarado, Anne-Marie. “Designer Babies: Creating Perfection or Breeding Trouble.” Law.uh.edu. Web. 1 Feb. 2014. <https://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/2009/(AM) babies.pdf>.

Ly, Sarah, “Ethics of Designer Babies”. Embryo Project Encyclopedia (2011-03-31). ISSN: 1940-5030 Web. 1 Feb.2014. <http://embryo.asu.edu/handle/10776/2088.>

Michael J. Sandel. “The Case Against Perfection: What’s Wrong with Designer Children, Bionic athletes, and Genetic Engineering?” In Arguing about Bioethics, edited by Stephen Holland, 93-104. New York: Routledge, 2012.