Unit 4 - Main Ethical issues from Science (research, development, etc.)

Unit 4 - Main Ethical issues from Science (research, development, etc.)

1. Remember to mention Religious theories as well as secular theories. Predominantly Christian theories perhaps?

2. Embryonic Stem Cell research

   • Ultimately leads to the destruction of embryos
     • Right to life argument - Christianity
       • Pro-Life
       • Particularly within Catholicism where research can be seen as interfering with God's creation - 'playing God'
       • Embryo as a person
     • Duty to respect human life - Kantianism
       • Pro-Life
       • Question of personhood for Kantianism as the embryo is not sentient
         • However, creation and ultimate destruction of embryos cannot be universalised. Also doesn't treat the human as an end - doesn't respect proposed person hood.
   • Can alleviate suffering in the long run should the research be successful
     • Potentially justifiable from a teleological perspective
   • Cannot respect both principles (right to life/duty to alleviate suffering)
   • Religious view points
     • Christianity: life begins at conception - therefore discarding of embryos is violating the sanctity and sacredness of life
       • Reaches same conclusion as Kantianism
     • No objection to adult stem cell research as there is no loss of life
   • Kantianism
     • Ultimate discarding of embryos violates categorical imperative
     • Also, discarding of embryos cannot be universalised
     • Therefore, embryonic stem cell research is not morally justifiable
     • Embryos treated as means, not ends
     • No objection to adult stem cell research as there is no loss of life

3. Animal Experimentation

   • Peter Singer: animals feel pain and suffer just as humans do. To prioritise human interests and preferences (ie in cosmetic testing or health related) over the animal's is to be guilty of speciesism.
     • Research into cosmetic products should be stopped - not life threatening, therefore our interests are less than the interests of the animal in not suffering.
   • Andrew Linzey (a Christian utilitarian)
     • Uses teachings from the Bible to show that animal experimentation is unethical
     • Doesn't focus on 'God gave man dominion' but on the idea that we are stewards here to serve God by looking after and tending to his creation.
       • Therefore, animal experimentation is wrong
   • Traditional Christian view: animals created for the use of humans, so humans are entitled to use them in any way they please.
     • Humans are worth more than animals because they don't have souls like humans do - therefore we are more 'special'
     • "God gave man dominion"
   • Tom Regan - Neo-Kantian
     • Believes the sentiency argument of Kantianism should be extended to some mammals - such as Gorillas
     • Classical Kantianism outdated - theory put into being over 200 years ago in a time when we had less knowledge of animals. We now know animals have sentiency
       • Some animals are rational and autonomous - they should therefore be treated with respect and dignity
       • They are 'subjects of a life'
         • They hold personhood
           • Should be treated as ends
           • Therefore, animal experimentation is not morally justifiable
   • Kantianism (classical/ original)
     • Animals are not sentient
     • They are not rational or autonomous - they are essentially biological machines run on instincts
       • Therefore they should be treated as means rather than ends - they hold no value
         • Link to traditional Christian view - Aquinas
         • Animal experimentation morally justifiable

4. Organ transplantation/The definition of death

   • Christian definition of death is heart death
   • Discrepancies regarding when it is ethical to declare a patient dead and to remove their organs
   • Religious definition: Christianity tends to go with 'cessation of respiratory system' as the definition of death
     • Therefore, a person can be brain dead yet if their respiratory system is kept going through being connected to a life support machine, they are not dead
       • Yet, these teachings pre-date the rise of medical sciencer
       • Organs can therefore not be removed
       • However, Jewish people accept brain death as death - in which case the organs can be removed even if the patient is supported by a machine
         • But even if the patient has a donor card, the doctors must ask the permission of the next of kin in regards to the removal of organs
   • Kantianism
     • Death is brain death
       • A brain dead donor is clearly no longer autonomous
         • No longer a means

5. Alzheimer's

   • Facts/statistics
     • Incurable
     • Risk of getting Alzheimer's increases to 50% in over 85s
     • An increasing problem in the ageing population - people are living longer
   • Teleological (mostly Utilitarian) perspectives
     • Costs and benefits of treating the patient
       • Scarce resources
         • The more resources used in caring for A patients, the less available for others with potentially curable diseases
         • May look for solutions that impose less expense on the taxpayer
           • Selling patient's property to pay for care (disutility for relatives)
           • Home care - relieve some stress on health services (disutility for relatives who have to act as carers)
       • Will eventually need constant care
     • Quality of life of the patient themselves
       • If QoL is severely diminished, may look for solutions to alleviate their suffering/economic strain
         • Euthanasia
           • This might be the most 'loving' thing to do (Situation ethics)
           • Issue of advanced directives: no psychological continuity in late stages, therefore are disconnected from past
             • Utilitarian may discard A.D as a result - esp if it benefits patient/society to do so bc not bound to the past - only bound to the future
         • Removal of care to speed up their death
           • i.e by removing assisted feeding
       • Increasing cognitive impairment is distressing for the patient as well as for family members
   • Kantianism
     • Focus on the wishes of the patient (ie advanced directives)
       • Euthanasia: despite disconnection from past, would likely go through with wishes rather than ignoring them - a perfect duty similar to a promise. A logical contradiction if not followed.
         • However, are they even the same person as when first issues A.D???
       • Euthanasia would have to pass the universability test
     • Duties of those around them (i.e doctors/family members)
       • Spouses and doctors have an unconditional (perfect) duty to support patient regardless of consequences
     • Rights of the patient
     • As patients lose their autonomy, should they still be treated as ends?
   • Hybrid approach (situation ethics)
     • Good opportunity to act with loving kindness
       • Doesn't matter it will eventually be one way love as loving actions are charitable and self giving - nothing expected in return