Bioethics
As our technology continues to advance, new breakthroughs in medicine
are
discovered. With these new developments serious ethical and moral
questions
arise. Advancements in genetic engineering, reproductive
technologies, cloning,
organ transplanting, and human experimentation are all
causes of concern. The
Human Genome Project, an incredible scientific
undertaking determined to produce
a map of the human DNA code, will tell us
how each gene or group of genes
function (Lemonick and Thompson 44). With
this map, scientists and doctors will
be able to figure out how genes can
malfunction and cause deadly diseases. Of
course, they will also know what
each gene controls, and how to manipulate and
control our genes to get the
specified, desired results. This is exactly the
type of tool researchers need
to perfect the science of eugenics.
"Eugenics"- a powerful word from the
Greek stem meaning "good in
birth" (Gray 84). In the past, it was thought
that we could improve the
quality of the human race by making it impossible
for those with undesirable
traits to reproduce. Charles Davenport once said
that he hoped "human
matings could be placed on the same high plane as that
of horse breeding" (qtd.
in Gray 84). Many states in the United States have
put into place laws that
required people in custody with hereditary defects
to be sterilized (Gray 85).
The false science of eugenics and
purification of the human race swayed these
states. One such example of this
is the 1927 Supreme Court case of Buck vs.
Bell. The result of this case
was the sterilization of Carrie Buck, the
seventeen year old daughter of a
"feeble-minded" mother; the mother a
seven month old daughter, already
determined to be of "subnormal
intelligence"; legally declared a "moral
imbecile" herself. But
the concept of purging our race was not present in the
United States alone.
Hitler's concept of eugenics consisted of
sterilizing the blind, schizophrenics,
and those with terrible physical
deformities (Gray 85). Now, with the
advancement of genetic engineering,
genetically altering the human race has made
a huge leap forward. Soon
scientists will be able to genetically pre-determine
nearly every
characteristic new-born children are likely to have. Doctors will
be able to
determine how tall a child will be, what type of body they will have,
what
illnesses they will be resistant to, and even their IQ and personality
(Lemonick
64). As Jeremy Rifkin, a critic of biotechnology, says, "It's
the ultimate
shopping experience: designing your baby. In a society used to
cosmetic
surgery..., this is not a big step" (qtd. in Lemonick 64). However,
the
gene or combination of genes that make up these favored characteristics
have not
yet been found, so it is not yet possible to engineer a variety of
genes, both
in and out of the fetus (Lemonick 64). According to a TIME
magazine poll, if
given the choice of which traits a person would choice for
his or her child,
sixty percent of those responding would choose to rule out
a fatal disease.
Thirty-three percent of the people would request greater
intelligent, twelve
percent desired to influence height or weight, and
finally, eleven percent of
those questioned would determine the sex of the
child (Lemonick 64). Also,
according to the same survey, thirty-nine percent
of those polled believe that
parents with genetically linked diseases ought
to be required to test their
children for them, while fifty-five percent did
not (Lemonick 64). When speaking
of genetically altering genes to obtain the
proverbial "perfect baby,"
one must address the issue of genetic
discrimination. If researchers are able to
locate the exact genes that
determine our mental traits or characteristics,
could zealous parents or
possibly the government use this ability to destroy any
characteristics they
see as undesirable and remove them? Then proceed to add the
traits they
consider good and guarantee everyone receives them (Yount 86)? The
issue of
genetic discrimination will become more and more prevalent as
society
continues to strive toward perfection, and new methods of obtaining
this are
developed. As geneticist Karl A. Drlica said in 1994, "What we now
call an
average child may eventually be considered defective" (qtd. in Yount
80).
This is a relatively easy point to defend. When a group of parents
is
genetically altering the future generation to perfection, those not
engineered
will be at a disadvantage. Soon we will have the technology to
escape having
children with certain "defects," such as attention-deficit
disorder,
below-average height, lower intellect, homosexuality, or a possible
genetically
linked disease. Will those individuals still possessing these
traits be
ostracized and made to feel even more inferior (Lemonick 66)?
Canadian biologist
N.J. Berill stated it well when he said: "Sooner or
later one human society
or another will launch out on this adventure [of
using gene alteration to
produce people with certain characteristics],
whether the rest of mankind
approves it our not. If this happens, and a
superior race emerges with great
intelligence and longer lives, how will
these people look upon those who are
left lagging behind?...They, not we,
will be the heirs to the future, and they
will assume control." (qtd. in
Yount 86) Are all of these theories on an
emerging "superior race" unfounded
and irrational? If researchers use
the new science of genetic engineering to
achieve positive results, is there
really any issue? As the editor of the
Economist said in 1992, "...People
have a right to make what they want of
their lives..." (qtd. in Yount 81).
But the question of genetic
discrimination has not yet been adequately covered.
There are many
every-day situations in which this could rear its ugly head. For
example, if
employers were given access to the genetic history of potential
employees,
might they be hesitant to hire a candidate that has not been altered,
if only
because they would then have to pay more for health care (Yount 81)?
When
given the choice between a proven medical endorsement and a possible
health
disaster, it is not difficult to make a decision. Insurance companies
are eager
to obtain access to policy holders' genetic records. With these
records,
insurers will be able to determine possible health risks more
accurately.
However, insurers claim they are only replacing the old
method of using medical
check-ups and life expectancy calculations with the
latest technology (Kirby).
According to a TIME magazine poll, most people
do not support the practice of
charging higher premiums for those with a
genetic predisposition to health
problems. Eighty-eight percent of those
questioned did not agree with higher
rates, as opposed to the eight percent
that did (Golden 59). Insurance worries
and workplace conflicts are not the
only situations where this problem becomes
apparent. There is new evidence
that sexual orientation is partly genetic in
nature. If scientists discover
this to be true, will it curb discrimination by
proving sexual orientation is
instinctive, or will it compound the problem, and
result in destruction or
alteration of all fetuses showing this mannerism
(Kirby)? The problem of
genetic discrimination is being addressed. On November
11, 1997, the
UNESCO General Conference adopted the Universal Declaration of the
Human
Genome and Human Rights. This declaration states: "No one shall be
subjected
to discrimination based on genetic characteristics that is intended
to
infringe or has the effect of infringing human rights..."
(Kirby).
Currently, over seventy genetic discrimination bills are being
debated in
twenty-four states, and more than thirty states have laws
forbidding genetic
tests for job or health insurance applicants. Also, the
Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 makes it
illegal for health insurers
to deny coverage based on pre-existing genetic
conditions (Hallowell 60).
Whether or not these various laws and
regulations will prove to be effective
remains to be seen. One piece of the
puzzle that has been sorely neglected thus
far is the fate of those fetuses
having "defective" genes. Will
parents be pressured to abort when confronted
will the serious possibility of a
genetic disorder? One case in California
strongly suggests this is happening. A
young woman discovered her child would
be born with cystic fibrosis. This
woman's health-care organization would
cover the cost of the abortion, but
denied care to the child if she gave
birth to it; however, a lawsuit reversed
this decision (Yount 82). The debate
over the ethics of genetic engineering is a
heated one. There are many sides
to the issues; one must look at the positive,
as well as the negative.
Proponents of genetic engineering stress the fact that
this technology can be
used to do a world of good. The first successful
application of this science
occurred in 1990. Nine-year-old Cynthia Cutshall and
four-year-old Ashanti
DeSilva, both diagnosed with immunodeficiency disease,
underwent a procedure
to replace the defective genes with healthy specimens into
their bloodstream;
which stimulated production of the enzyme their bodies needed
but did not
produce. Soon after, both girls became perfectly healthy. Dr. W.
French
Anderson, one of the surgeons working with the girls, said afterward that
it
was "a social and cultural victory. It launched the field of human
gene
therapy" (qtd. in Wekesser 13). Little did he realize what an impact
this
life-saving procedure would have on scientists, researchers, doctors,
and
parents everywhere. Physicians at the New York Hospital-Cornell Medical
Center
are claiming to be the first group to apply this form of technology to
treat
heart disease. Scientist injected a gene telling cells to make new
blood vessels
into a sixty-year-old man's heart. Their hope is that,
eventually, the heart
will grow its own bypass (Physicians 6). Defenders of
genetic alterations also
claim that this science is perfectly acceptable as
long as researchers refrain
from doing anything along "racist" or "classist"
lines (Yount
88). They also state that although we can change the genetic
makeup of an
organism, we cannot guarantee our attempts will be successful.
In order for
something to function properly, all its parts must fit together
readily. The
only changes that will be successful are those that preserve the
internal
balance of the said organism (Wekesser 25). Andrea Kott best summed
up these
sentiments best when she said: "Imagine beating chronic,
debilitating, even
fatal diseases before they strike. Think of the lives, the
medical dollars, that
could be saved if doctors could identify individuals
genetically predisposed to
heart disease, cancer, and other killers, and,
through modification of diet,
lifestyle, or other risk factors, reduce or
eliminate their susceptibility. The
possibility seems within reach as an
ever-expanding arsenal of gene-testing
technologies is developed." (qtd. in
Wekesser 27) It must be stated that
the science of genetic engineering does
not apply to humans alone. Many
breakthroughs have been made in the field of
food alteration. Scientists are now
able to modify a variety of edible
products to achieve a desired effect. But is
there a risk to genetically
engineering that which we daily consume? Peter Mond,
the head of the
organization Greenpeace, would tell you that this represents a
great hazard.
Mond was once arrested for mowing down and uprooting an entire
field of
genetically modified corn (Congman 43). Political activists are not the
only
ones concerned with the issue of genetically engineered food. A
Gerber
Corporation spokesman verified the suspicion that due to a fax
from Greenpeace,
the company will cease the use of modified food products in
its ingredients (Congman
43). According to researchers, there are
potential risks to altered food. Some
of these include the threat of an
allergy inducing gene being spliced into a
relatively harmless organism, the
increased production of poison by an altered
plant, and the loss of
nutritional content in engineered food (Tangley 40).
Agricultural
engineering has also undergone several new advancements.
Researchers have
been able to develop specimens of corn, wheat, rice, and
soybeans that are
resistant to disease, pests, and are able to create their own
fertilizer. One
example of this is the new breed of strawberries scientists are
generating.
Geneticists have taken the gene that prevents the arctic flounder
form
freezing in icy water and spliced it into strawberries to make them
more
resistant to frost (Wekesser 12). One can only imagine what this will do
to the
year-round availability and price of strawberries. Of course, as
anyone from the
Cornbelt can see, the rapid reduction of the price of any
given agricultural
product can devastate the economy. It is now time to
discuss society's
ever-growing problem of organ transplanting ethics. It is a
sad statistic that
more organs are buried each year than the number of
patients in need of them
(Leone, Biomedical 54). There are over fifty
thousand people currently on organ
waiting lists, and of those, nearly ten
die each day (Leone, Medical 57). How is
this problem to be solved? There is
a portion of the medical and scientific
field that believes that, in order to
provide a constant supply of organ
donations, the sale of organs should be
made legal. Now, this group does not
promote the sale of organs from living
donors, rather, the trade of cadaveric
organs (Leone, Biomedical 56). The
1984 National Organ Transplant Act has made
the trade of organs for monetary
exchange illegal (Leone, Medical 53). However,
organ trafficking is legal in
Turkey, Brazil, Japan, Iraq, and the Phillipines.
Between 1990 and 1995,
more than two thousand kidneys were sold annually in the
Middle East. The
donors were typically poor, relatively unhealthy, and
desperately in need of
this money to survive (Leone, Medical 54). Opponents of
this believe that to
accept organs under these conditions is a medical crime.
This question is
not an easy question to answer. On one hand, the sale of organs
could indeed
save many lives. On the other hand, is it worth the risk to
initiate that
form of commerce? A discussion on the ethics of biotechnology on
the human
body would not be complete without touching upon new
reproductive
technologies. This science has gone through extensive
developments in the past
years. 8.5 percent of married couples in the United
States are infertile (Leone,
Reproductive 13). Because of this, several
new methods of impregnating infertile
women have been developed. One method
is "zygote intrafallopian
transfer," otherwise know as "ZIFT." With this
method, a doctor
inserts the embryo into one of the woman's fallopiantubes,
where it travels to
the uterus (Leone, Reproductive 13). Another method,
"gamete intrafallopian
transfer" (GIFT), is done by injecting sperm and an
unfertilized egg into a
fallopian tube, at which time conception and
implantation will occur (Leone,
Reproductive 13). Lastly is the "zona
cracking" method. This technique
involves piercing the outer layer of the egg
and placing a single sperm cell
within the egg, then embedding the fertilized
egg into the woman (Leone,
Reproductive 13). There is yet another
well-known fashion for infertile couples
to conceive a child - surrogate
motherhood. In this process, the fertilized egg
of one woman is allowed to
develop in the womb of another. Surrogate motherhood
has its benefits. It
allows a woman who faces a high-risk pregnancy have a child
without
jeopardizing her own health, and lessens the chances of premature
birth.
Surrogate motherhood also gives non-traditional families, such as
single or
homosexual parents, an opportunity to raise their own descendents
(Leone,
Reproductive 81). Opponents of reproductive technology argue that
the solution
to infertility is adoption. However, adoption can be very
difficult and expense.
Also, some feel they would not be able to love a
child that is not their own
offspring (Leone, Reproductive 50). Progress has
been made in the field of
genetically testing unborn children, also. Almost
nine of every ten pregnant
women have undergone some sort of prenatal
screening (Golden 56). Most often,
this is done to detect spina bifida,
nueral defects, and Down syndrome (Golden
57). Furthermore, prenatal
testing has reduced by more that ninety-five percent
the number of Tay-Sachs
births in American Jews (Golden 58). Many couples also
opt for a sex
determination test. However, in a nation such as China or India,
where males
are favored over females, what will happen if parents begin
actively
producing an unbalanced number of males? Boys, like first-born
children, are
often dominant and aggressive. It will be even more difficult
to dispel
gender-based customs if society is filled with dominant, first-born
males; and
submissive, obedient females (Lemonick 66). Because religion plays
such a huge
role in the lives of many Americans, this aspect must also be
considered.
According to the Roman Catholic Church, in-vitro
fertilization is "morally
illicit," and considered sin (Leone, Reproductive
34). The church objects
to the fact that children may now be conceived in the
absence of a sexual act
between a married couple (Leone, Reproductive 34).
Yet another cause for concern
is the technology that entitles post-menopausal
woman to give birth. A bitter
debate over this issue was ignited when a
fifty-nine-year-old British woman gave
birth to twins. This was made possible
through artificial conception (Leone,
Reproductive 53). The chief
question in this controversy is whether or not the
parents will be able to
raise the child. Arthur Caplan, director of the Center
for Biomedical Ethics
at the University of Minnesota, summed up these feelings
when he asked, "Is
it right to intentionally create children if you know
that both parents are
likely to be entering a nursing home before the kid is in
elementary school?"
(qtd. in Leone, Reproductive 53) Women are now able to
give birth to four,
five, six, or more children through reproductive technology.
Is this safe
for the children? Children who are the products of multiple birth
cases are
more likely to be small and premature. There is also a four hundred
percent
increase in the risk of cerebral palsy. Lastly, older mothers are more
likely
to give birth to an infant with developmental brain damage (Multiple
1).
Is it morally right to endorse a situation that may result in an
unhealthy
child? There is also an area of study dealing with fetal tissue
research.
Scientists in Scotland can now deliver a baby mouse created
from the egg of an
aborted mice fetus, and will soon be able to achieve this
with humans (Leone,
Reproductive 22). Immature eggs can also be collected
from a female fetus as
early as the ninth week, aged in a petri dish, and be
used to create another
child (Leone, Reproductive 38). Fetal tissue research
has had its positive
effects. Doctors have been able to extract brain cells
from aborted fetuses,
inserted them into the brains of Alzheimer's victims,
and cure or nearly cure
the patient. The application biotechnology on humans
is not limited to
engineering and reproductive technologies. The frightening
truth is that
scientific experiments are often performed on American
citizens. Perhaps the
most gruesome example of this act was during World War
II. Nazi scientists
performed various tests analyzing the effects of cold,
mustard gas, and
phosphorous burns on the human body (McCuen 22). During
World War II, Japanese
scientists were also involved in this horrid practice.
One old farmer described
his human experimentation experience; where he
dissected a young man still
alive, bound to a bed, without anesthetic. "The
fellow knew that it was
over for him and so he didn't struggle when they led
him into the room and tied
him down. But when I picked up the scalpel, that's
when he began screaming. I
cut him open from the chest to the stomach and he
screamed terribly and his face
was all twisted in agony. He made this
unimaginable sound, he was screaming so
horribly. But then finally he
stopped. This was all in a day's work for the
surgeon's, but it really left
an impression on me because it was my first
time..." (qtd. in McCuen 39) Is
human experimentation limited to savage,
foreign countries? Unfortunately
not. The United States government itself
sponsored several thousand human
radiation experiments between 1944 and 1974
(United 10). Another example of
human experimentation in this country is the
Tuskegee Experiment. This
was one of the largest know surveys on the effects of
untreated syphilis on
male Negroes. The controversy over this test erupted when
it was made know
that patients were denied the option of treatment once
penicillin became
widely available (Mccuen 49). The United States military has
also been
extensively involved in human experimentation. In one program,
biological and
chemical agents were released over highly populated areas such as
Hawaii,
Alaska, San Francisco, St. Louis, Minneapolis, and more (McCuen 83).
In
1945, seventeen-year-old Navy recruit Rudolph R. Mills volunteered for
a gas
mask experiment. Little did he know, the test mask he was wearing
became less
effective with each use. Mills wore the same mask almost a dozen
times for an
hour each time the test was performed. Mills was left with burns
on his chin and
cheeks (McCuen 100). There are regulations to how far
researchers can go in
their explorations into human experimentation. The
Nurembourg Code, which was
put into place after World War II, demands the
voluntary consent of human
subjects during experimentation. It also states
that "the degree of risk to
be taken should never exceed that determined by
the humanitarian importance of
the problem to be solved by the experiment"
(McCuen 22). Finally, perhaps
the most recently developed, controversial
bioethical dispute: cloning. The
process of cloning is incredibly complex.
Scientists remove the nucleus from a
mammary cell and place it into an egg
cell that has been removed of its DNA. The
cell is then starved of nutrients,
the nucleus and donor egg are fused with an
electrical charge, and implanted
into a surrogate mother (Leone, Biomedical 16).
When Ian Wilmut cloned
Dolly the sheep in 1997, a tremendous uproar ensued. The
National
Bioethics Advisory Committee recommended a five-year moratorium on
human
cloning so that the technology and ethics of such an undertaking
could
further be studied (Leone, Biomedical 13). As this is such an enormous
cultural
and social topic, the pros and cons of today's cloning technology
must be
painstakingly considered. First, a look at the benefits of cloning.
Proponents
of human cloning have several reasons for having the view they do.
One
justification for human cloning is what many deem "spare parts."
If
doctors were able to harvest organs from patients in need, the organ
shortage
could be severely reduced. In addition, patients would no longer
require taking
medication their entire lives to avoid rejection of the new
organ (Yount 90).
Scientists could also grow hearts and livers from pigs
that would be compatible
to humans (Clone 10). Another benefit of cloning is
what it could do to the
pharmaceutical industry. Drug companies will be able
to clone proteins from
animal milk for the treatment of hemophilia (Clone
10). Japan has become notably
progressive in its use of cloning technology.
Japanese researchers have
developed to prototypes of cloned cattle - ES1 and
ES2. These cattle are only
the beginning of Japan's venture into using
advanced biotechnology to rouse its
sluggish beef industry. Researchers in
Japan have already perfected methods to
clone potatoes, tomatoes, asparagus,
orchids, and goldfish (Brave 12). It has
been said that to clone a human will
strip away the very essence of humanity.
This is not true, say some
advocates of human cloning. Personality traits are a
complicated interaction
between many genes and the individual's unique
environment. One cannot expect
a gene to work how its "label" says
(Leone, Biomedical 30). Human cloning
also occurs randomly in nature - with
identical twins (Madigan et al.). Yet
nobody argues that twins are not
individuals and are mutations of nature.
Even twins kept in the same room will
react differently to various things.
For clones, this would be even greater
because of their divergence in years
(Leone, Biomedical 48). No matter what you
clone, you cannot clone two exact
brains. The cloning of a human being would
also end the argument over
genetics or environment once and for all. Senator Tom
Harkin of Iowa is
one of those who believe cloning research should be allowed to
evolve without
restriction. He states that those who would put an end to cloning
should
"take your ranks alongside Pope Paul V, who in 1616 tried to
stop
Galileo" (qtd. in Leone, Biomedical 14). Many would be inclined to
agree
with him, including a long list of influential American and
international
figures. This list includes such scholars and humanists as
Sergei Kapitz, chair
of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology;
Indumati Parikh, Indian
reformer and activist; W.V. Quine, Professor Emeritus
of Philosophy, Harvard;
and Kurt Vonnegut, novelist (Madigan et al.) There is
another serious side to
this debate, which also deserves equal focus. The
negative aspects of cloning
also weigh heavily on many consciences. One
argument is that in order to achieve
one normal human specimen from cloning,
a number of deformed or handicapped
children will be produced. This theory is
based on the fact that of 277 attempts
to clone a sheep, only one acceptable
copy was actualized (Leone, Biomedical
14). Another fear is the suspicion
that if we are able to change the genetic
makeup of an organism and clone it,
will someone, somewhere, attempt to clone an
entire race of lower-caste,
human slaves (Madigan et al.)? Or, looking at it
from another angle, will it
be possible to engineer and clone an entire
generation of superior beings?
Many conclude that that argument is inadmissible,
because the concept of
defining superiority through genetics is nearly
impossible (Leone, Biomedical
30). A quick glance at the list of those opposing
the continuation of human
cloning research reveals several world leaders,
including President Bill
Clinton of the United States, President Jacques Chirac
of France, former
Prime Minister John Major of Great Britain, and the Vatican in
Rome
(Madigan et al.) The Vatican in Rome. A commanding force to be reckoned
with
in the debate over moral and ethic issues. Numerous religions around
the
world have publicly announced their opinion of cloning; and, for the most
part,
they do not favor the practice. Dr. Abdulaziz Sachedina, an Islamic
scholar at
the University of Virginia, declared cloning to be in violation of
Islamic
teaching about the family legacy and said that it eliminates the
sanctioned role
of fathers in procreating children (Madigan et al.). A recent
conference of
Roman Catholic bishops announced that cloning is
"intristically morally
wrong," an attempt to "play god," and it "exceeds the
limits
of the delegated dominion given to the human race" (qtd. in Madigan
et
al.). One Protestant scholar, Gilbert Meilander, said that cloning is
immoral
because the reason for the clone's existence "would be grounded in
our own
will and desires" (qtd. in Madigan et al.). There are many reasons
for the
Church's hostility toward cloning; however, three prominent
reasons emerge most
often. The first of these is that cloning is an attempt
to "play god."
Now this argument was also used against birth control,
organ transplants and
assisted deaths. Many proponents of cloning believe
that religious leaders use
this excuse anytime people attempt to control
their own lives (Madigan et al.).
This does not however, make it wrong or
misleading. Should there be a barrier
that determines how deep into human
life scientists can go? The next widespread
argument is that cloning is not
natural. It has been said that cloning separates
reproduction and intercourse
(Madigan et al.). Religious leaders believe that
conception should be a
moral, loving act between a married couple. Lastly, there
is the theory that
by cloning a human, we deny that person their uniqueness and
dignity. By
giving a cell a "used" set of genes, churches conclude,
scientists are
robbing that person of singularity and the right to be
one-of-a-kind. There
are two arguments to refute this. First, DNA, as well as
environment, shapes
one's personality (Madigan et al.) Also, the fact that
clones can be found in
nature on a regular basis, with identical twins. This
violent debate between
religion and science is not likely to end soon. The basic
fact is, everyone
must form their own set of morals and ethics. One's outlook
determines the
side one will take in such debates. It may be based on personal
experience,
religious beliefs, or occupation. My personal philosophy is that if
we, as a
progressive society, ever hope to achieve the things that were once
looked
upon as lunatic science fiction, we must be willing to dig as deep
as
technology allows us. There are so many amazing new discoveries to be
made,
inside our bodies and out. This technology WILL be put to use by
someone,
whether for good or for evil. Why not use as much as possible now
for society's
benefit, before the science is forever barred? Let's get what
we can out of it,
instead of letting it get into the wrong hands.