Worrying About the "Bioethics Crisis."
An article has been published in the Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required) entitled "Bioethics Crisis Looms Unless NIH Changes Course, Critics Warn," byline Richard Monastersky. Bioethics crisis? Apparently, practitioners believe we need more bioethicists to tell us what to do in future biotechnological research. From the story:
The nation is adrift when it comes to the academic field of bioethics, according to two prominent medical officials, who call on the National Institutes of Health to chart a strategic plan for training more people in that area and for conducting more research into ethical aspects of medicine. The dearth of leadership and support for that work erodes public trust in government-supported medical-research programs, which pour billions of dollars into academic medical centers, according to the officials, who published two separate commentaries in the June issue of Academic Medicine.Perhaps it isn't a dearth of bioethicists but the policies and ideas that the mainstream movement promotes that causes the perceived loss of public trust.
Moreover, there are bioethicists and there are bioethicists. The President's Council on Bioethics made several recommendations in the field--and other bioethicists, like Art Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania, screamed in opposition. Conversely, President Bill Clinton's bioethics advisory panel took an essentially anything goes approach to the same issues. Two presidents, two panels, two different opinions.
The field was originally dominated by Paul Ramsey and Joseph Fletcher--and too more diametrically opposed thinkers could not be found. Today, Peter Singer is the world's most famous bioethicist because he promotes infanticide and that equal consideration be given to animals in determining utilitarian outcomes. Yet the influential bioethicist Leon Kass, the former head of the President's Council on Bioethics--would oppose those views. Who should we hearken to Singer or Kass?
I am not saying bioethics isn't a useful field. But I am saying it is entirely subjective. It is also hyper political. Thus, while bioethicists can raise important and interesting issues for us to ponder, they can't and shouldn't be the deciders. Nobody gave them a monopoly to determine right from wrong.
Labels: Bioethics
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 11:14 AM
16 Comments
16 Comments:
I'm dismayed by the number of people who blithely accept or even approve of human germline genetic engineering and same-sex conception. There are simply not enough people raising their voices in support of a ban on that stuff, in support of natural male-female conception, so people just assume that supporting GE is expected. And the stifling of thought by PC intimidation has got to be overcome by some strong and clear voices that others can take refuge in. Too many bioethicists are wishy-washy and never say the things that need to be said about conception rights, so they leave all the people who would support true bio-ethics out in the wilderness, with no defenses against the thugs that gang up on people who make the mistake of admitting traditionalism.
Yet, we know that there is a solid majority that believes there is something special about male-female couples and something special about marriage, those people and the issues they care about shouldn't be anathema to the field of bioethics. They really are talking about the very same thing, and bioethicists need to stop pretending they're using some different frame to make their decisions. Either male-female couples make people naturally, hopefully after committing in marriage, or labs make people from lab-designed gametes and sex is just for recreation or exercise, like in Brave New World.
The point, I think, is that tradition is NOT a good way to make decisions of "right" and "wrong." It's not the case that bioethicists are against the traditional way of doing things, only that we demand that there be a better reason than "we've always done it that way" to justify an act.
You seem to have claimed that "real bio-ethics" is something related to strengthening traditional values, but that doesn't amount to much. Why is that what "bio-ethics" is supposed to do?
No, I've tried to say that bio-ethicists have been trying to carve some separate and distinct field to work in, and, like you, seem to be offended that regular old shmoes are also looking at the same issue and have a simple answer: procreation should be done by a man and a woman. But because those shmoes are not "bioethicists" bioethicists assume they cannot understand the issue properly and the answer must be, by definition, different from their answer. That's bad. Marriage is a bioethics. Don't hold its long history against it, and don't hold its veneration by religion against it, it is a valid bioethics.
You've missed the point. It isn't the case that we think "schmoes" shouldn't think about bioethics. I wish more schmoes would think about bioethics. There are important bioethical questions that need to be addressed in the public sector.
The thing that seems to offend you is that bioethicists are asking you to give reasons for your assertion that marriage should be between only a man/woman (or whatever). If your only reason is "that's how it's always been done," then you haven't given a very good reason.
The answer is, why is that the way it has always been done?
I'm not interested in any particular bioethicist's "reasons" about anything, and I don't care if you are.
Actually, that's not an answer. That's a question.
You've clearly ended the conversation on your side. Before you stomp away in a huff, however, perhaps you ought to examine the reason that you don't want to hear anyone's reasoned arguments.
Because they imply that there is some separate frame of "bioethics" in which we must reach our conclusions, and imply that the ethics of marriage is not a bioethics, when it is nothing but a pure and complete bioethics.
And the answer to your question is found in the answer to my question. We should keep doing it the way we have always done it because of the reason we have always done it that way.
This reminds me of the "how are humans unique" question that bioethicists love to squabble over. They say "it's the language" or "it's the tools" or "its the morality" or whatever. No, it's the fact that only humans have humans for parents, and humans only have humans for children. All humans have (only) a human mother and a human father. If we start creating people other ways, so that humans might not have two humans as progenitors, or humans might not have human children, then we will have to start listening to the bioethicists tell us who they think is human and who isn't. Until then, (and hopefully that means never) we don't have to listen to them.
Btw, saying "I'm not interested in hearing any bioethicist's opinions" isn't ending the conversation, it is conversation.
If a postmodern "make up your own rules" person applies those anti-ethics to biology, you will soon have totalitarian bioethics.
(Yes, a few phrases like "compassionate choice" or right to "off" oneself or one's young or to "put one's ageing parent out of their misery" will be used - in this new Animal Farm form of medical manipulation)
Brutally put - the weak can be disposed of - or enslaved - or mutilated - to serve the strong (those in power of the medical process).
It's just high tech domination.
John, I think we're done. I'm just not interested in discussions with people who aren't interested in reasons. If all you have to say is "we should do X because we've always done X," then I've heard your argument and found it utterly unconvincing.
@VM: Where are you reading bioethicists that say we should dispose of, mutilate, or enslave the weak? We must be reading different papers...
But there is a reason we have always done X, matteson, and that is the reason we should always do X. (I'm only talking about reproduction, btw, and X is sexual reproduction, preferably in marriage.) The reason we have always done X is because it doesn't require any genetic manipulation and ensures that parents are committed and consenting. Also, the fact that all other babies are born through X is a reason to do X. Also, the fact that it doesn't cost anything.
Oh, but see, no reason I come up with is going to be good enough for you, is it? That's why I'm advocating that we not listen to bioethicists at all, who only want to come up with novel ways of deciding bioethics, and instead trust our intuitive understanding that marriage is the best bioethics and we should preserve marriage.
"Oh, but see, no reason I come up with is going to be good enough for you, is it?"
That's not the case at all. You have this assumption that I want some complicated answer to a question when all I really want is an explication of your thinking. Now you've given me that, and we can have a conversation about it if you like.
Why do you think that sexual reproduction ensures that the parents are committed to the child or that having children requires consent? Both of those things seem patently false to me. Lots of parents are terrible, and lots of times the having of a child isn't consentual on both sides.
If I'm right about these points, then why should we not allow homosexual couples to have children when they are clearly consenting and willing to spend a huge amount of time and energy to have a child together? If there's no evidence that they are worse parents than heterosexual couples then what is the reason that they can't have a child via some technological means?
Time out: I am enjoying this exchange, but I an not sure I want to get into the issue of homosexual parenting per se as that begins to stray away from SHS's jurisdiction. Thank you. Carry on.
@ Wes: Fair enough. Your house, your rules. Question recinded. JH, if you want to come over to my blog (though it's not specifically bioethical) I'd be happy to continue down that line.
@ JH: Could you maybe tell me what one of these "novel new ways of deciding bioethics" is? As I see it, bioethics only seeks to find answers to questions regarding the intersection of ethics and lives. We don't need something novel for this, just a conversation that includes (but doesn't take for granted) traditional ways of doing things. Tradition has led folks down the wrong path many, many times and we just don't want to go down a path with only tradition on our side. I don't dismiss a claim which is traditional (like sexual reproduction is best) because it is traditional. If I reject it there must be some reason that I find more compelling than the motive of keeping with tradition.
There are plenty of examples of this in human history. Slavery is now unacceptable. Women can own things and vote. Both of these had a strong tradition behind them which could not stand up to the arguments against them. Why are marriage and reporduction different?
Could you maybe tell me what one of these "novel new ways of deciding bioethics" is?
Um, I've seen things like "would the child have a flourishing life" or maybe it was "more flourishing" or "would want to be born" or something, and I've seen shameless claims of the right to do whatever the heck one wants, and I've seen claims based on an obligation to eradicate disease and colonize outer space with superlative lifeforms that we can't imagine. I'm sure there are more, as Wesley was pointing out in this post.
I don't dismiss a claim which is traditional (like sexual reproduction is best) because it is traditional. If I reject it there must be some reason that I find more compelling than the motive of keeping with tradition.
But I think you do reject it because it is traditional. I gave three reasons: "it doesn't require any genetic manipulation and ensures that parents are committed and consenting. Also, the fact that all other babies are born through X is a reason to do X. Also, the fact that it doesn't cost anything."
My claim is that, in terms of how people are created, marriage is best, not merely sexual reproduction (as I don't believe egg donation and sperm donation is ethical, or rape or adultery or fornication). Marriage ensures commitment and consent.
Those (at least the first 3) don't look like novel new ways of deciding bioethics to me. They look like pretty standard questions that you would ask before taking some action on behalf of another. If I were to need to make a decision on behalf of someone who can't make that decision for themselves I would ask whether the child would flourish (whatever that means) or whether it would be put into a situation where it would rather be not-alive. They aren't new questions, but they might be new targets for the question.
Perhaps you think we shouldn't care what sort of life a baby would have. I think that's weird, but you're entitled to think it. If you're going to advocate policy on this you're going to need to convince people, and you ought to have good reasons to do that.
The 'right to do whatever the heck one wants' and the others are probably bad on grounds which have nothing to do with newness. Plato clearly thought that we didn't have this right, and that we shouldn't have this right. It's not a new idea at all.
As for the tradition thing:
If I reject your argument (and I might) it would be because I reject one or more of your arguments. Not because I think tradition is inherently bad. Some traditions are very good, but not all of them. Let's look at what you give me:
1. "Doesn't require GM." I'm not sure why I should care about this. You haven't told me why or how GM would harm the child or the parents. If it harms the child/parents then this is a good reason.
1a. "Parents are C/C." I still don't buy this, and I don't see any reason to think that they would be MORE consenting or committed than people who have to go to extraordinary lengths to have a child. The reverse would be true in most cases, I would think.
2. "All other babies are made this way." This is not an argument; it is a statement of fact. Is does not imply ought, and if the question we are asking is "should babies be made in other ways" then you haven’t addressed the question at all. I want more for an answer than this.
3. "Doesn't cost anything." I assume you mean that it doesn't cost any more than any other baby. Babies have tremendous costs in terms of cash and life-style, so there's no way you can mean that "babies are free." The response to this is: "If the prospective parents are willing to pay, then why shouldn't you let them?"
Happy married people (leaving aside the question of who may marry whom) who really want children are maybe the best people to have children. Why does that mean that other methods are illicit or bad?
So you see, I don't care whether a thing is traditional. I just say that tradition shouldn't be the only leg that it stands on. There is no reason to think that tradition = good.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home