Genetics

Genetics

1. Utiliarianism

   • Utilitarianism looks at the benefits and risks associated with genetics.
   • Bentham
     • The hedonic calculus allows us to weigh up extent and certainty, but relies on us having a good idea what the extent will be and how likely the problems are to occur.
       • Bentham considers all sentient creatures, and therefore may have problems with using animals for pharmaceuticals or to grow human organs.
   • Singer
     • Singer would want to consider the interests of animals alongside humans.
       • If it were simply a case of a single pig dying to save a human life, Singer is likely to value the human far more than the pig, as the human has far more and greater interests.
         • However, modern technology now involves harming a much larger number of animals, which would be a concern for Singer.
   • Mill
     • Rule Utilitarianism starts with general principles from which specific acts can be prohibited without exception to the rule.
       • Human life should be preserved
         • This rule can be seen as promoting the greatest net utility. But does this apply to an embryo in an early stage of development?
           • This raises the issue of personhood.
             • If the embryo is accepted as a form of human life then it should be preserved, but it may not be considered a person with rights at this early stage.

2. Kantian Ethics

   • Kant's theory deals in absolute rules.
     • Rather than asking what the benefits of genetic engineering might be, he would ask whether there was anything in principle wrong with such research.
       • Could you will that embryonic stem-cell research became a universal law? If it was, it could mean that you had been experimented on instead of being implanted.
         • This is contrary to the will - an imperfect duty.
           • Some Kantians disagree, as they do not see the embryo as a 'potential person' yet.
       • Kant would be happy with xenotransplantation (using animals to grow organs for humans) as long as there were no risks to humans.
         • Animals have no intrinsic value for Kant as they are not rational.
           • For example, to ask "Would you will that you could be used to grow organs for humans if you were a pig?" would make no sense as pigs aren't capable of willing this at all.

3. Natural Law

   • Genetic Engineering at first seems to run contrary to Natural Law.
     • Natural Law is based on the principle that God designed the world.
       • Genetic Engineering involves tampering with or changing the way the world is.
         • However, we need to be cautious here. All of medicine involves changing the way the world is in some way. The real question is whether a therapy or procedure is intended to allow an organ or part of the body to fulfil its purpose, or to carry out some other purpose.
           • Natural Law would therefore be against enhancement genetic engineering, but may be happy with somatic-cell therapies that corrected disorders.
             • Natural Law may be against using animals to produce pharmaceuticals or to grow organs for transplant as this runs contrary to their God-given purpose.
               • However, most Natural Law theologians tend to see animals as lower beings and accept that they may be used to, for example, feed humans.
                 • The justification may be that one of the primary precepts of Aquinas' Natural Law Theory is to protect and preserve human life, in which case 'pharming' and xenotransplantation would be seen as acceptable.
               • Natural Law may support GM Foods.
                 • The real question is, will GM food be better at feeding the world? Potentially, modifying food to increase yield could reduce costs, feeding more people in Africa and reducing human suffering.
                 • The concern from a Natural Law point of view are the unknown effects (will it harm humans - contrary to one of the primary precepts).
           • Natural Law has no problem with artificial limbs, synthetic fibres etc. as they help humans fulfil their purpose.
             • Don't get confused between natural and artificial with this theory.

4. Situation Ethics

   • Situantionists would be more than happy to use animals to grow organs or pharmaceuticals, due to the importance of love within the argument.
     • But is it Pragmatic?
       • Do xenotransplantation and 'pharming' work?
         • There is good evidence to suggest they do work very successfully, so Situation Ethics would support them.
     • Human Genetic Engineering
       • Gene therapies that are somatic (in one person's body) would be seen as a loving alternative to letting someone suffer and die.
         • Germ-line therapies are more problematic, as they may affect many future generations.
           • Situation Ethics is teleological, concerned with outcomes.
           • It is more difficult to say where situation ethics would stand with enhancement gene therapies.
             • A situationist is likely to argue that the money could be better spent on those who are sick (this would certainly be more loving), but there are no absolutes here.
               • In special individual cases, the most loving thing to do may be enhancement gene therapy.