This week’s readings included two pieces about the public debate and interpretations surrounding bioethics, while the other looked at a “new” movement in bioethics. The first reading, Reflections on Public Bioethics: A View from the Trenches by Leon Kass, is a review of the major work done by the President’s Council on Bioethics. The President’s council on Bioethics is “a public body, devoted to public questions, whose activities are fully open to public scrutiny” (222). Kass asserts the point that this council has “a duty to promote a greater understanding of these issues for a wider national public,” repeatedly mentioning the importance of discussing bioethics in terms of “ordinary public discourse” (223, 228). I think this is an important point because, before having read any of the articles presented in class, I personally didn’t know very much about human cloning and found it hard to interpret all the issues surrounding it due to the use of bioethics jargon.
The majority of Kass’s essays reviews the five major works of the council, which attempt to address the previously mentioned goals of the council. The first of these works, Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry, was one of our readings from last week and discusses the case for and against cloning-for-biomedical-research and cloning-to-produce-children. As mentioned by Paula in her blog post last week, the majority of the council recommended no human cloning to be allowed.
Monitoring Stem Cell Research is an update that summarizes the significant developments in stem cell research, with the overarching goal “to convey the moral and social importance,” surrounding stem cell research (232). Because stem cell research was a relatively young and constantly developing field at the time, the council intended for this section to improve understanding in order to achieve better public discussion and decision making with regards to stem cell research.
Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness examines the use of biotechnology to serve “human goals beyond healing disease and relieving suffering,” (234). This section deals with questions of human character and humanity, looking into human desires for ageless bodies, happy souls, and “better children.” I found this section to be very interesting. On the one hand, I think the use of technology to potentially treat or prevent mental illness could be beneficial. However, I don’t think we should use these technologies to attempt to create “better children” by selecting for specific genetic traits. In the future, I think this can lead to a blurred line between what is humanity and what is not, while also making regulation of bioethics very difficult to put in place or enforce. As mentioned by Kass, the issues presented in this section force one to look beyond issues of fairness, autonomy, and equality and to consider issues of identity, hubris, and humility to name a few (237).
Being Human: Readings from the President’s Council on Bioethics focuses on aspects of “being human” and how bioethics issues touch on matters “close to the core of humanity,” (238). To address these questions in greater depth, the council published an anthology of readings surrounding the questions of what it means to be human. The final section of the council’s works, “Reproduction and Responsibility: The Regulation of New Biotechnologies,” discusses regulation of biotechnologies, finding that present regulatory institutions are unable to remain up to date with the fast pace of technological advance (242). Instead of recommending a proposal for new regulatory institutions, the council provided a proposal that targets what they believe to be unethical practices in human reproduction, one of which being the prohibited “use of human embryos in research beyond a designated stage in development,” (244).
While this report had the goal of improving public understanding surrounding the debate on bioethics, Kass notes that it is hard to educate people without telling them a direct answer on what they should do. Kass cites “the life question” as one of the “most frustrating aspects of public bioethics,” because it leads most to forget about other important aspects of public bioethics, such as human dignity and human freedom. The life question is “the principle that calls for protecting, preserving, and saving human life,” which as Kass states, although an important consideration, “cannot continue to be the sole consideration in public bioethical discourse,” (249).
Questions:
- In his essay Kass asks, “When and to what extent should we strive to change and alter nature and especially our own given nature, in an effort to improve or save it?” When do you think the altering of human nature should be stopped or regulated?
Our next reading, Not Just for Experts: The Public Debate about Reprogenetics in Germany by Kathrin Braun examines how policy debates in Germany regarding reproductive and genetic technologies stemmed debates on the definition of ethics and the role ethicists play in public policy. As Braun states, ethics in this context is about “how a nation-state should handle developments in science and technology, specifically in biology and medicine,” (42).
The two sides of the bioethics debate in Germany consist of techno-skeptics and techno-optimists, but the two sides are not strictly split based on ideologies. Techno-optimists “emphasize technologies potential benefits, welcome enhancement of choice, and believe that society is able. . .to calculate and to control potential risks,” (43). For them, ethics is a matter of choice with the task of rationalizing different conflicting values. Understood as a “specific type of professional academic expertise,” techno-optimists think the task of ethics is best performed by professionals.
Techno-skeptics on the other hand, “underscore the limits of technological solutions and the price that individuals and society might have to pay for them,” (43). An important ethos for techno-skeptics incorporates the will to not distinguish between a life worth living and a life not worth living. They conceive ethics as “a matter of paying respect to a set of common legal and moral principles,” fundamentally meant to convey the nature of a good society (43-44). For them, ethics should not be left to the experts, rather ethics requires participation of citizens in a public debate.
Braun conveys the different ways to link politics to ethics through two different discourses: managerial and republican. Managerial discourse is characterized by the belief that problems surrounding genetic and reproductive technologies can be handled through a risk-benefit analysis. Ethics, in this case, is “a set of tools and techniques to solve problems and make decisions,” and emphasizes the competence of experts to handle questions of ethics (44). Republican discourse assumes that problems of technology are a social problem, with genetic and reproductive technologies seen as “affecting fundamental moral principles, questions of identity, and the meaning of life,” (44). Emphasizing citizen engagement and the notion of a good society, problems of ethics cannot be solved, according to republican discourse, without the engagement between citizens and policymakers in a public debate setting (44).
In the rest of Braun’s paper, she applies these differing sides and discourses to portray the development of the bioethics debates in Germany. While the German Embryo Protection Act was highly restrictive, the German abortion law considers abortion to be “illegal but not subject to prosecution,” meaning that abortion is only necessarily considered morally and legally wrong in principle. Something I found interesting about the German abortion laws is that it is based on the idea of “support instead of punishment,” assuming social support is more effective in encouraging women to continue their pregnancy instead of banning abortion entirely, which I tend to agree with. Surrounding the debate on the status of embryos, in 2002 it was decided that the importation and use of embryonic stem cells be prohibited in principle, with the passing of the Stem Cell Act that same year.
Questions:
- Do you relate more to a managerial or republican discourse surround the meaning of ethics and its place in policy?
- Do you think it’s entirely possible to distinguish between a life worth living and a life not worth living? How would the distinction translate into ethical policy?
Our last reading, The New Conservatives in Bioethics: Who are they and what do they seek? by Ruth Macklin, analyzes the new label of a “conservative” movement in bioethics which they believe challenges ideas and topics in liberal, mainstream bioethics. Throughout the reading, Macklin asserts how these new labels have led to misunderstandings and misinterpretations within bioethics. For example, what used to be deemed conservative bioethics is generally considered to be liberal bioethics now. Macklin cites conservative bioethicists as opponents of biotechnology and its use in “interventions they term ‘artificial’”, new reproductive technologies, stem cell research involving the destruction of embryos, and biomedical efforts to enhance physical or mental capabilities (35).
The mission of conservative bioethics is “to prevent our transformation into a culture without awe filled with people without souls” (37). Conservatives find that mainstream bioethics often disregards the “deeper questions of human dignity and human nature,” (37). Macklin takes issue with the mission of conservative bioethics and find that it leads to confusion about the bioethics field. Through the use of poetic and metaphoric language, appeals to emotion, sentiment, and intuition, mean spirited rhetoric, and discussion of “projects,” Macklin conveys how conservative bioethics has come to misconstrue many concepts and ideals within bioethics. This made me think about our two previous readings for this week, and how both conveyed how important it is to discuss the debate in bioethics in terms the public can understand. Personally, I found many of the examples cited by Macklin to be troubling, especially the opposition to all things “artificial.” The label of being artificial can come with a negative connotation and I think the way the conservatives use this term is inaccurate. As mentioned by Macklin, there is no “artificial sex” that brings “artificial babies.” The babies conceived in this way are quite real, with nothing artificial about them, and they are not conceived through sex because, usually, the female is unable to conceive a child the “natural” way.
Questions
- Do you think labels like liberal and conservative can be applied to bioethics? Or do you agree with Macklin that such labels render confusion within the field?
- In her discussion of making children “more biologically equal,” by researching stem cells that could help address child diseases, Macklin asks the question, “Why is it acceptable (or is it?) to alter the physical environment to benefit individuals with disabilities (i.e. accommodations for wheelchairs) but not their biological attributes?” What do you think about this question? Do you think physical environment and biological attributes are comparable in this instance?
Unit 12 Response:
Molly, your blog post was extremely informative and well-written. In “Reflections on Public Bioethics: A View from the Trenches”, I enjoyed reading how the main goal of the bioethics council was to take into account public opinion. Many times in political history (modern-day also), the objective of government officials has been to promote their own agenda, regardless of public thought. Reading how the bioethics council attempts to mold their views to fit that of the public shows me that democracy still hasn’t been compromised fully.
Another section of your post I found interesting was where you mentioned that technology should not be used to form “perfect children”. I completely agree with you on this topic. Attempting to form “perfect children” seems to change the course of humanity; every person has a unique trait and talent they can bring to the world, so by attempting to form “the perfect child”, this sense of diversity becomes lost. Overall, I enjoyed reading your post and look forward to hearing more about these topics in class discussions.
Hey Molly,
Great job with your post for this week. I think you did a great job summarizing and explaining the readings as well as asking questions that really got into the heart of the issues. I also really appreciate that you defined a few terms and used that to clarify the discussion.
The final question you posed in your blog post was really interesting to me. In this case I think that the issue lies in how soon can preventative care really start, and what constitutes disability. Disability ethics are really important for us to consider and for us to look into, because i feel like many times the person that claims that prenatal testing and genetic corrections should be used to erase these “issues” from our society doesn’t always have a clear concept on what the disability discussed means to people living with that disability. I believe that a majority of the human population comes in with a “disadvantage” in life, whether that be a physical impairment, one’s race or religion, gender, or socioeconomic status. Who gets to decide what should be considered such a disadvantage that the individual’s life is not worth living? Is physical impairment the only criteria that should be examined?
Molly,
Thanks for your post. I was also drawn to many of the things you discussed here, namely Leon Kass’ commentary on the Council’s Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. The argument here is that we are facing an age where the goal is no longer to heal, it is to enhance. I disagree somewhat, because are we not simply healing in a prophylactic way? I’d say that a gene therapy that prevents a baby being born with cystic fibrosis aligns with what Kass calls “conventional medicine” (235). We are trying to minimize human suffering the most careful way we possibly can: prevent it from happening at all.
I think the question of using technologies for the betterment of the human race is a different issue altogether. I’d like to challenge your point where you disagree with the act of using biotechnologies to create “better children.” I think it is useless to discuss whether or not it is ethical to use technologies in this way. If the technology exists, and if it works, and if it allows us to rid our population of genetic abnormalities and learning disabilities, then I don’t see how an ethics committee can stop humans from using them. Kass speaks a lot about the human desire for perfection: “longer life, stronger bodies, sharper minds, better performance, happier souls, better children” (235). If this becomes a real possibility, I find it hard to believe that humans can refrain from taking advantage of this power simply because a committee deems it unethical. I think, then, the important question becomes that of access. Who can partake of these technologies? Do the rich get bigger, better, smarter? Is this a new kind of selection, a new “survival of the fittest?”
This ties into Macklin’s argument well, and the question you pose at the end of your post. She gives journalist Eric Cohen’s “conservative” opinion on “the Americans project” which claims to promote equality through eugenics. He argues against the introduction of these technologies because it comes out of a “sentiment” that scientists have to not want children to be born with diseases. Macklin says that he “rejects a conception of justice.” If you think about the inevitable inequity that comes out of offering expensive interventions for diseased fetuses, this argument about biotechnology allowing for all things to be created equal is ridiculous. It is much more feasible to alter the physical environment than it is to alter the genetic environment of an individual. These are two totally different things, one being fairly simple and the other being extremely expensive and invasive. In my opinion, offering biotechnologies isn’t “just” at all once you examine the logistics. It’s way more equitable to invest in changes in a physical environment that everyone can have access to. Anyway to answer your question, I don’t think these two things can be compared. Do you agree?
Reading these articles for this week has really shown me that there is no way to label the different sides on bioethics issues. Techno optimists, techno skeptics, conservatives, liberals- they all don’t encompass the wide variety of opinions expressed by the public. For example, the techno skeptics in Germany do not necessarily hate all technology. In fact, most of them are less avid about banning abortion. Also, techno optimists do not necessarily approve of all technology use with no regulations. I like how Ruth Macklin emphasized the misconceptions fostered by the labels. While I agree with several of her arguments, she still seems to pit mainstream bioethics against this new burgeoning group of scholars. One thing she made me aware of though is the politicized nature of the counsel that was discussed by Leon Kass. In his article, Leon Kass goes to great lengths to claim the diversity of opinions expressed by the counsel. Yet, they agree on more things than would be given by chance if you had a variety of opinions present. Leon Kass emphasized the need to take public opinions into consideration rather than just experts. He seems to claim that the members of the counsel represent public opinions because they come from a variety of disciplines. Yet, the counsel can’t properly represent all of the core opinions within the United States because the counsel is simply not big enough and there isn’t enough variety of voices. I would like to understand the circumstances of this counsel’s creation more. The reading says that an executive order by president Bush created the counsel. It says that the president appointed the members of the counsel. President Bush was known to be particularly biased against several technologies, so perhaps he ensured that the majority of the members supported these ideas.
Hi Molly,
Thanks for posting this week! I found your connection to Paula’s post on our blog from last week to be very insightful.
In your second about Monitoring Stem Cell Research, you discuss how the topic “was young and constantly developing”, but I would argue that still today, the world of stem cell research is a field on the rise and has yet to leave its full mark on the world. I believe that we must still be constantly reforming our bioethical outlook on stem cell research.
To address one of your questions posed, I would like to try and answer this question: “Do you think it’s entirely possible to distinguish between a life worth living and a life not worth living? How would the distinction translate into ethical policy?” As we all know after almost an entire semester discussing the ethics of topics closely related to this one, these issues are extremely convoluted and controversial. In my opinion, we as humans do not have the knowledge/power to decides when/whether a life in worth living. Who are we to empower ourselves to make these monumental decisions? I believe that we cannot set up hard and fast guidelines for decisions of this nature, but rather, we must approach each and every situation individually.
I do think that labels of liberal and conservative can be applied to bioethics. My one stipulation is that we must always be aware that the definitions of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” can quickly change, as shown in our reading by Macklin.
Hello Molly,
Thanks again for your blog post. I found the reprogenetic public debates in Germany to be the most interesting. In regards to your questions, I must start of by stating I relate to the more managerial discourse. I, too, would consider professional experts to be the most qualified to be in the discussion of bioethics. Grant it, I believe the experts invited to the table need to be experts of relevant fields to the discussion on hand and that there needs to be in place a way to communicate the discussions to the public, they should be open for viewing, for criticism by the people, to keep the experts and the discussions transparent.
In addition to this, I do not believe there is a way to distinguish between a life worth living and a life not worth living. When it comes to this question, I think of not only of genetic manipulation or abortion, but also of suicide and life support technologies. This is a topic that touches not only birth as the beginning of new life by death as the end.
Good Evening Molly,
First of all, I think you did a great job on this blog post. You posed the question concerning altering nature, which I have always struggled with. When it comes to technology and nature, there is much conflict. Usually unnatural things have a negative view by the public, whether it is genetically modified crops or designer babies, but some similarly unnatural things I would find permissible. It is hard to draw the line of permissibility on a spectrum of unnatural technologies, but I would argue that nobody would prevent someone who needs an “unnatural” artificial heart from receiving one.
I do tend to agree with techno-skeptics that there should be no difference between a life worth living and a life not worth living. I have always been taught there life is sacred from conception until natural death, so I do not believe any life is not worth living. I also did find that German abortion law to be interesting, and I too tend to agree with it. Even though it is illegal, there is no prosecution if it is violated. This takes into account that religion really is a personal thing, and others should not interfere with the relationship between the individual and his or her divine being.
-Ben