Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
see this as malicious means (sacrificing embryos and living
human beings) toward the end (treatment).
Further, ethicists will be faced with the ''slippery slope''
dilemma. This argument sees a progression from di-
minished respect for embryos to a lack of respect for all
unborn human beings, which leads to less respect for
weaker members of the society. This last step in the pro-
gression is an argument for an incremental acceptance of
eugenics, the belief that information about heredity can be
used to improve the human race. The dreadful truth is that
the genocide and other inhumane attempts at eugenics,
such as the Nazis' attempted purging of Jewish people in
the twentieth century, were clumsy and inefficient com-
pared to emergent genetic manipulations available now
and in the foreseeable future. The slippery slope advocates
fear that the next Hitler will have subtle tools and a ''ra-
tionale'' supported by many to accomplish similar ends
(i.e., eradicating selected human subpopulations).
In fact, one view extends this devaluing of certain
human beings to even
after
they are born (a type of
''postnatal abortion'').
Peter Singer holds the title of Ira W. Decamp Chair of
Bioethics at Princeton University's Center for the Study
of Human Values. In his topic,
Rethinking Life and Death:
The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics,
Singer asserts:
rigid scientism misrepresents the scientific data and even
its own materialistic philosophy, since even the template
for materialism cannot be proven by observation. That is,
the premise that only that which can be measured is real is
itself an unmeasurable and untestable premise.
Thus, such moral relativism is an easy and sloppy way
to deal with personhood. Applying a ''greatest good'' de-
fense (i.e., decisions wherein the most pleasure or desire
is gained) allows for the rest of society to sacrifice certain
members. Such sacrifice is easiest and scientifically erro-
neous if we call them ''nonhuman'' and it is philosophi-
cally erroneous if we call them ''nonpersons.'' Singer and
his ilk advocate both. Common sense and, hopefully,
common morality would disagree. Such convenience is
highly unscientific and grossly unethical. Theologian
Michel Schooyans
12
has characterized this quite well:
Men cast doubt on the human character of certain
beings whenever they sought arguments to exploit or
exterminate their fellow human beings. In antiquity
slaves were considered as things and barbarians as
second class men. In the sixteenth century, some
conquerors considered the Indians as ''beasts in human
appearance.'' The Nazis looked upon some men as
''non-men'', as
Unmenschen.
To these arbitrary
classifications dictated by the masters corresponded
real discrimination and this, in turn, ''legitimized''
exploitation or extermination.
Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of
grasping their lives over time. They are not persons.
Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of
protection than the life of a fetus.
11
Scientific advances can wreak havoc with social values.
What appears to be advanced thinking at times turns out
to be retrograde attempts at dehumanization.
Advances in technology can be used to commoditize
human beings. Genetic fetal testing, for example, can be
used as a screen against the ''unfit.'' Conversely, scientific
advances can improve the bioethical landscape. Many
of us hope that the perceived demand for embryonic
stem cells will soon be obviated by scientific advances
that allow the same cures and treatments using unques-
tionably morally acceptable tools, such as adult stem
cells. Recent advances cause us to be hopefully optimistic
(see Teachable Moment: Nanog).
Ironically, many pro-life advocates would agree with
Singer's statement because they believe that a fetus is
indeed worthy of protection as is any human person.
However, they strongly oppose Singer's contention that
self-awareness is an essential characteristic of personhood,
so those who are not self-aware are, by Singer's definition,
not persons. They may well agree with the definition for
the species, but not for individuals. In other words,
H. sapiens
are indeed unique in their self-awareness, but
each individual of the species varies in awareness of self and
the awareness changes over the lifetime of the individual.
To Singer, those creatures at any given time that lack
full self-awareness (the unborn, the newly born, those in
vegetative states, the infirm, and those nearing the end of
life) are merely human nonpersons. In fact, Singer, who
is an emblematic advocate of animal rights, contends that
unaware babies are less valuable than self-aware non-
human animals. Singer's position points to a problem of
unadulterated utilitarianism; that is, value is based entirely
on the elitist's view of philosophical and scientific natu-
ralism (materialism). In such a strident view, nonmaterial
phenomena, such as a soul, are dismissed since they cannot
be measured empirically (this also eliminates most human
qualities, such as love, true happiness, and meaning). Such
Human enhancement
Engineering is all about enhancing our environment and
ourselves. However, the tools that have emerged in
recent decades are changing the nature of what we can
do. Consequently, ethical issues are emerging or are be-
coming
increasingly
complicated
by
biomedical
and
biosystem
breakthroughs.
One
area
that
should
be
discussed here, though, is ''genetic engineering.''
The first question that engineers must ask is whether
so-called genetic engineering is really engineering. At its
