|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Monday, September 13, 2004Finally, the charge of embryo-centrism assumes that microscopic embryos are too narrow and trivial a topic for a national debate on bioethics. On a practical level, this is quickly refuted. One of the facts uncovered by the council is that the in vitro fertilization business in the United States has swollen from nothing into a $4 billion industry in 25 years. The financial potential for embryonic stem cells is largely speculative, but it could be far greater. The future of embryos touches every home in America. According to another council member, William B. Hurlbut, a medical doctor and instructor at Stanford, belittling the importance of the embryo ignores the commercial potential of human body parts at all stages of development. "Anyone who denigrates our council work as 'embryo-centric' and therefore an overfocus on obscure concerns is not seeing clearly where science is heading," he says. "Sometimes the smallest things carry the largest meaning. This is not 'microethics' but a crucial hinge in the history of our understanding of human embodiment and human dignity." ....What has emerged from the quarrel over the council is evidence of the fracture between the "bio" substance and the "ethics" process. Critics like Annas and Caplan focus on the ethics--the codes, protocols, and declarations created by their new discipline. In their eyes, the destiny of bioethicists is to sit on bioethics committees and set public policy. As council member Gilbert Meilaender pointed out in an email, "It's exactly that view that has been responsible for a loss of much of the depth of reflection in bioethics in recent years." Kass's fundamental concern, however, and one that is reflected in the unusually thoughtful tone of the council's reports, is to examine the "bio"--the nature of life and what it means to be a human person. As the 2002 report, Human Cloning and Human Dignity, says, "On the surface, discussion has focused on the safety of cloning techniques, the hoped-for medical benefits of cloning research, and the morality of experimenting on human embryos. But driving the conversations are deeper concerns about where biotechnology may be taking us and what it might mean for human freedom, equality, and dignity." A variety of public policy issues merit careful study by bioethicists, but few affect a fraction of the people whose lives are touched by the rapidly changing context of human reproduction. On that score alone, the council's deliberations deserve praise, not censure, for placing far-reaching technologies at the center of national debate--not closeted away in company boardrooms. posted by Sydney on 9/13/2004 08:05:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
