Home
Weiye Loh's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
Hume, on the contrary, thinks that suicide is morally permissible, also on the grounds of his analysis of duties. He talks about three types of duties: to god, to ourselves, and to others. I will skip the first category, since I don’t think there are any gods toward whom we have any duties.
In terms of duties to others, Hume claims that in committing suicide we do not harm others (again, with the partial exception of the distress we may cause to loved ones). However, we also — by necessity — cease to do any good for society, which may present a problem. Hume’s response here is that our duties to society are in proportion to the benefits we receive from society (a form of pragmatic reciprocal altruism, if you will), and since we do not receive any benefits from society after we die (obviously), it follows that we do not have any duties toward it either. More broadly, in Hume’s words, “I am not obliged to do a small good for society at the expense of a great harm to myself.”
“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.
The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.
They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.
-
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
-
Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.
What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.
While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”
mainstream politicians fear religious institutions that oppose voluntary euthanasia, even though individual believers often do not follow their religious leaders’ views. Polls in various countries have shown that a majority of Roman Catholics, for example, support legalization of voluntary euthanasia. Even in strongly Catholic Poland, more people now support legalization than oppose it.
In any case, the religious beliefs of a minority should not deny individuals like Dudley Clendinen the right to end their lives in the manner of their own choosing.
-
Surveys show that more than two-thirds of Canadians support legalization of voluntary euthanasia – a level that has held steady for several decades. So it is not surprising that the report received strong backing in the mainstream Canadian media. What is more puzzling is the cool response from the country’s political parties, none of which indicated a willingness to support law reform in this area.
There is a similar contrast between public opinion and political (in)action elsewhere, including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and several continental European countries. Why, when it comes to dying, do democratic institutions so often fail to translate what people want into legislation?
the impact of personalized medicine in the short term might be positive at the patient’s bedside, but vast clinical trials to demonstrate the safety of new drugs will impose huge development costs that manufacturers might never recover. (Currently, only about one in five drugs approved by US regulators ever recoup their development costs.) This situation would not be sustainable in the long term.
If society is to derive the maximum benefit from personalized medicine – which will require companies to pursue it
-
Personalized drug therapy uses biological indicators, or “biomarkers” – such as DNA sequences or the presence or absence of drug receptors – as an indicator of how patients should be treated, as well as to estimate the likelihood that the intervention will be effective. This concept is not new: it has been known for decades, for example, that people who have a genetic deficiency of an enzyme called G6PD can experience severe and precipitous anemia if they are exposed to certain drugs.
-
Similarly, ethnic groups and individuals vary widely in their ability to clear medications from the bloodstream, owing to differences in the activity of the enzymes that metabolize, or degrade, drugs. That is important because low metabolizers clear certain drugs slowly and have more medication in their systems for longer periods of time than high metabolizers. Thus, the former might be prone to overdose, and the latter to insufficient levels of the same drug.
- 6 more annotation(s)...
-
globalization and neuroscience. The preoccupation with globalization has clearly affected my own work. In my new book, The Body Politic, I argue that the battle for control over the power of experimental biology is partly shaped by the fact that science is a globally networked enterprise of scientists and their sponsors. In the new paperback version of my 2006 book, Mind Wars, I'm reviewing the way that the global war on terrorism has influenced the growth of research on the brain. Right now, I'm a senior adviser to the president's bioethics commission, which has been digging up the facts about the venereal disease experiments in Guatemala in the late 1940s. That commission report is being followed by an assessment of the international protections for human research subjects today. Globalization pushes us to think more about justice and fairness, which have been concerns more typical of non-U.S. bioethicists.
The other area that is having a big impact on bioethics is neuroscience, which has undergone remarkable growth by just about any measure over the last 15 years. One of the keys has been the advent of new imaging devices that make it possible to do experiments with healthy persons rather than during neurosurgery. Another is invasive implants that can alleviate distressing symptoms of brain disorders like Parkinson's. "Neuroethicists" even have their own professional organization in which I am active. I'm especially interested in the national security implications of cognitive enhancements that might be developed, though I think we're far from some of the science fiction scenarios about "super soldiers" and the like. I'm sure we're in for some surprises along the way.
, it is particularly ironic that the South’s voters are America’s most zealous in their efforts to protect innocent human life – as long as that life is still inside the womb, or is that of a person who, suffering from a terminal illness, seeks a doctor’s assistance in order to die when he or she wants. It is a contradiction that belies what the Republican Party, which dominates the region, promotes as a “culture of life.”
-
The death penalty is not an effective deterrent. Murder rates in Europe and other Western industrialized nations are lower, often much lower, than those in the US. In the US itself, the 16 states that have abolished the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than those that retain it.
In the US, however, deterrence is not really the issue. Retribution is often seen as a more important justification for the death penalty. It is quite common for family members of the victim to watch the execution of the person convicted of killing their relative, and afterwards to pronounce themselves satisfied that justice has been done – it happened again with the execution of Troy Davis.
Even though cosmetic surgery has grown to become a multi billion-dollar industry, it is looked at with some suspicion. Many feel that there is something superficial and, perhaps, slightly desperate about undergoing surgery for aesthetic reasons. In academia, at least, although a hair transplant and a teeth bleaching might pass, chances are that a breast enlargement would raise eyebrows.
It is not be unlikely, however, that the eyebrows in question would be both plucked and colored—for we already do quite a bit to enhance our looks. We work out, try to dress well, shave, and go to the hairdresser. We make sure we get tanned during summer. Some of us are on a diet, wear make up, or dye our hair.
-
“Beauty is a greater recommendation than any letter of introduction.” – Arthur Schopenhauer, Aphorisms on the Wisdom of Life
-
looks matter to us. One thing is that what meets us in the mirror is important for our self-esteem, and that better looks give us better chances in the mating market. Another thing is that in all areas of life, we are judged by our looks. This is true even of areas of where, ideally, looks should not matter. Pretty people are treated better than those who are less pretty, and studies find robust evidence that we systematically attribute unobservable characteristics such as moral stature, intelligence, and productivity based on physical attractiveness. The results of this are readily observable: Pretty people receive milder prison sentences and according to The Economist, “over a lifetime and assuming today’s mean wages, a handsome worker in America might on average make $230,000 more than a very plain one.” [1]
- 4 more annotation(s)...
We obsess in this country about how to eat and dress and drink, about finding a job and a mate. About having sex and children. About how to live. But we don’t talk about how to die. We act as if facing death weren’t one of life’s greatest, most absorbing thrills and challenges. Believe me, it is. This is not dull. But we have to be able to see doctors and machines, medical and insurance systems, family and friends and religions as informative — not governing — in order to be free.
-
Lingering would be a colossal waste of love and money.
-
I’d rather die. I respect the wishes of people who want to live as long as they can. But I would like the same respect for those of us who decide — rationally — not to. I’ve done my homework. I have a plan. If I get pneumonia, I’ll let it snuff me out. If not, there are those other ways. I just have to act while my hands still work: the gun, narcotics, sharp blades, a plastic bag, a fast car, over-the-counter drugs, oleander tea (the polite Southern way), carbon monoxide, even helium. That would give me a really funny voice at the end.
I have found the way. Not a gun. A way that’s quiet and calm.
Knowing that comforts me. I don’t worry about fatty foods anymore. I don’t worry about having enough money to grow old. I’m not going to grow old.
I’m having a wonderful time.
Over the past decade, an army of psychologists, neuroscientists, and evolutionary biologists has been busy trying to uncover the neural “clockwork” that underlies human morality. They have started to trace the evolutionary origins of pro-social sentiments such as empathy, and have begun to uncover the genes that dispose some individuals to senseless violence and others to acts of altruism, and the pathways in our brain that shape our ethical decisions. And to understand how something works is also to begin to see ways to modify and even control it.
Indeed, scientists have not only identified some of the brain pathways that shape our ethical decisions, but also chemical substances that modulate this neural activity.
-
study has shown that the anti-depressant Citalopram can change the responses of individuals to hypothetical moral dilemma scenarios. Individuals given the drug were less willing to sacrifice an individual to save the lives of several others. Another series of studies has shown that when the hormone oxytocin is administered via nasal spray, it increases trusting and cooperative behavior within social groups, but also decreases cooperation with those perceived as outsiders. Neuroscientists have even magnetically “zapped” carefully targeted areas of people’s brains to influence their moral judgments in surprising ways – for example, making it easier for them to lie.
-
the research is advancing fast, and it is almost certain to suggest new ways to reshape our moral intuitions, sentiments, and motivations.
- 5 more annotation(s)...
All of these genetic links to common issues are fundamentally the same in how they work — they involve many genes that don’t determine our fate but rather impact how we react to our environment. The potential benefits to understanding this relationship are immense, and much progress is being made. As scientists learn more about how these intricate relationships work, they will hopefully be able to develop personalized treatments for people struggling from a variety of ailments. Until then, genetic sequencing for the public will have to wait — the relatively little information we have so far would likely only lead to faulty conclusions, made in an attempt to form that simple, big picture we always expect from science.
-
A recent article in The New York Times reported that over 100 studies show a relationship between genes and criminality but that the environment plays a key role in the effects of this relationship:
“Kevin Beaver, an associate professor at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, said genetics may account for, say, half of a person’s aggressive behavior, but that 50 percent comprises hundreds or thousands of genes that express themselves differently depending on the environment.
He has tried to measure which circumstances — having delinquent friends, living in a disadvantaged neighborhood — influence whether a predisposition to violence surfaces. After studying twins and siblings, he came up with an astonishing result: In boys not exposed to the risk factors, genetics played no role in any of their violent behavior. The positive environment had prevented the genetic switches — to use Mr. Pinker’s word — that affect aggression from being turned on. In boys with eight or more risk factors, however, genes explained 80 percent of their violence. Their switches had been flipped.”
-
In fact, environment plays the same crucial role for criminality as it does for obesity and depression.
In an interview I did for a story in The Michigan Daily on depression research, Dr. Margit Burmeister, a professor of human genetics and a researcher in the Molecular and Biological Neuroscience Institute at the University of Michigan, explained the dangers the public oversimplifying the link between genetics and depression:
- 1 more annotation(s)...
The Web site 88DB.com Philippines is an active online portal that allows service providers and consumers to find and interact with each other. Naoval, an Indonesian man with “AB blood type, no drugs and no alcohol,” wants to sell his kidney. Another man says, “I am a Filipino. I am willing to sell my kidney for my wife. She has breast cancer and I can’t afford her medications.” Then there is Enrique, who is “willing to donate my kidney for an exchange. 21 years old and healthy.”
Other offers of this type could, just a few years ago, be found at www.liver4you.org, which promised kidneys for $80,000-$110,000. The costs of the operation, including the fees of the surgeons – licensed in the United States, Great Britain, or the Philippines – would be included in the price.
-
All of this Internet activity is but the tip of the iceberg of a new and growing global human-tissue economy. Indeed, the World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that about 10% of organ transplants around the world stem from purely commercial transactions.
-
Trade in organs follows a clear, geographically linked pattern: people from rich countries buy the organs, and people in poor countries sell them. In my research on organ trafficking, I have entered some of these shadow markets, where body parts from the poor, war victims, and prisoners are commodities, bought or stolen for transplant into affluent ill people.
- 3 more annotation(s)...
In nature, the balance of males and females is maintained by natural selection acting on parents. As Sir Ronald Fisher brilliantly pointed out in 1930, a surplus of one sex will be redressed by selection in favour of rearing the other sex, up to the point where it is no longer the minority. It isn’t quite as simple as that. You have to take into account the relative economic costs of rearing one sex rather than the other. If, say, it costs twice as much to rear a son to maturity as a daughter (e.g. because males are bigger than females), the true choice facing a parent is not “Shall I rear a son or a daughter?” but “Shall I rear a son or two daughters?” So, Fisher concluded, what is equlibrated by natural selection is not the total numbers of sons and daughters born in the population, but the total parental expenditure on sons versus daughters. In practice, this usually amounts to an approximately equal ratio of males to females in the population at the end of the period of parental expenditure.
Note that the word ‘decision’ doesn’t mean conscious decision: we employ the usual ‘selfish gene’ metaphorical reasoning, in which natural selection favours genes that produce behaviour ‘as if’ decisions are being made.
-
what if we are dealing with a human society in which cultural traditions over-ride the genetic imperatives (yet another example, this time not necessarily a benign one, of ‘rebelling against the selfish genes’). What if the religion of a country fosters a deep-rooted undervaluing of women? What if there is an ancient culture of despising women, whether for religious or otherwise traditional or economic reasons? In past centuries such cultures might have fostered selective infanticide of newborn girls. But now, what if scientific culture makes it possible to know the sex of a fetus, say by amniocentesis or ultrasound scanning? There is then an obvious temptation selectively to abort female embryos, which could have far-reaching and probably pernicious social consequences. I'll refrain from gloating over the possibility of Taliban-inspired woman-hating societies going extinct for lack of women.
-
The Guardian has a report today on ‘sex selection of babies’, which is described as a ‘scourge’ of the developing world.
- 3 more annotation(s)...
it's easier to pollute than protect public health, that regulatory agencies turn a blind eye, that elected officials are corrupted to go along, that big money nearly always gets its way, that organizations like NCI and ACS abound with conflicts of interest, and that many scientific community members willingly compromise their integrity in return for generous research grants and other benefits.
As a result, cancer is a growth industry, environmental harm and human health the price for big industry profits. The power of vested interests keeps them burgeoning. Public awareness can change things, not decades more worthless research in lieu of simple solutions, eliminating harmful substances that kill.
-
everyone can vote with their pocketbook, boycotting harmful products, buying safer ones, and encouraging others to do the same thing. That's how important battles are won, by ordinary people at the grassroots - getting informed, doing the right thing, telling others, and proving where real power lies when it's used constructively.
-
the war on cancer is being lost, not won, because profits take precedence over public health, a testimony to corrupted priorities and criminal politicians who enforce them.
-
Cancer has proliferated because of the dramatic increase in carcinogenic environmental and workplace substances, Epstein saying in the preface to his 1978 book:
"Cancer is caused mainly by exposure to chemical or physical agents in the environment. The more of a carcinogen present in the human environment, hence the greater the exposure to it, the greater the chance of developing cancer from it. There is no known method for measuring or predicting a 'safe' level of exposure to any carcinogen below which cancer will result in any individual or population group."
"The Politics of Cancer" explained how exposure to environmental and occupational carcinogens causes cancer. Yet they're avoidable because safe substitutes exist. Nonetheless, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and American Cancer Society (ACS) - groups Epstein calls "the cancer establishment" - ignore preventable causes, searching for non-existant magic bullet cures. In fact, they allocate minimal budget amounts to prevention while deceiving people to believe they stress it.
-
"(t)he cancer establishment is fixated on damage control - diagnosis, treatment and basic genetic research - and is indifferent, if not sometimes hostile, to cancer prevention - getting carcinogens out of the environment."
"The second factor is conflicts of interests, which are significant when it comes to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), but profound and overwhelming (for) the National Cancer Society (NCS)." In fact, they're incestuously tied to the "drug industry, the mammography industry, the pesticide industry, and other such industries" that profit from cancer proliferation. It's big business. The more victims, the greater the bottom line benefits.
Notably, one former NCI director left for a drug industry position. Another went to the American Cancer Society (ACS) before heading up the fiberglas industry, producing a recognized carcinogenic product that should be banned.
-
Epstein and other public health experts know the war on cancer is winnable by determining avoidable and involuntary carcinogenic exposures, then lobbying Congress to remove them legislatively or by regulations.
He also supports laws that criminalize or hold corporations and their officials accountable for knowingly introducing new carcinogens into the environment.
Instead, of course, they buy politicians like toothpaste, lobby effectively for pro-business legislation and deregulation, and control corporate friendly "watchdog" agencies serving them, not the public interest by revolving door their officials in to run them.
A new website launched in Toronto allows the public to peruse all the current research on stem cells, as well as take a tour of a lab and stay updated on any specific disease — all in the hopes of educating us about a line of research that has huge potential to save a lot of lives. The ethical and political controversy hovering over work with stem cells, particularly embryonic cells — which have the biggest potential but pose the greatest ethical problems — has made work in the field particularly jittery; stop and go funding, as well as confusion about the concept in the public sector hasn’t made for the most ideal working conditions. Stem Cell City — an online portal launched yesterday may significantly contribute to the cause, its founding scientists hope.
-
Public access to this type of interesting and very important research is crucial in many ways — researchers may not always get the support they need from federal sources, but private funding can quickly step in — in this case, over $20 million dollars were privately donated by the founders of a related center. Public support is also potentially important for the morale of the researchers, themselves — they may know that their work has the potential to save lives, but getting the support of the people they are working for would presumably be a good feeling. In general, this type of public-access set-up may also lead to spontaneous crowd-sourcing of ideas and knowledge (the site already has a function to ask researchers questions as well as direct funding at certain topics) — allowing people who are not necessarily formally trained, but may have the smarts and the desire, will surely lead to at least something mildly productive down the road. Above all, the initiative will shed light on a controversial but very important aspect of modern science.
We are pleased to announce the launch of Bio-ethics Bites, a freely-available series of interviews with leading thinkers on issues in practical ethics. Already posted: an interview with Jeff McMahan (Rutgers) on the question of moral status, and an interview with Julian Savulescu (Oxford) on designer babies.
Is science capable of enhancing human abilities to the extent of the powers of the X-Men? What are the ethical implications if this is possible? Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Bioethics Paul Root Wolpe explores these questions raised by X-Men: First Class.
The core of the X-Men myth - genetic mutation - is something scientists have been learning how to manipulate for decades, and now it's just a matter of time before we know how to build X-Men of our own. But just as in the case of nuclear bombs, killer viruses and 3-D action movies, the fact that we can make them doesn't mean we should. In the above video from Emory University, Bioethics professor Paul Root Wolpe explores this moral dilemma via the latest iteration of the beloved mutants' saga: X-Men: First Class (In theaters June 3rd, and, praise be to Mendel, NOT in 3-D).
Sheerly Avni is a San Francisco-based arts and culture writer. Her work has appeared in Salon, LA Weekly, Mother Jones, and many other publications. You can follow her on twitter at @sheerly.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Top Contributors
Groups interested in Bioethics
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo