Where do you guys stand in the scientific/medical ethics debate?

  • Medical
  • Thread starter Elmnt
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Ethics
In summary: So, if someone says "because I say so," then you can rightly reply "well, why do you say that?" and try to establish the argument on which that "because" is based.
  • #1
Elmnt
13
0
http://singularityhub.com/2010/06/07/hans-keirstead-transforms-embryonic-stem-cells-into-retinas/

I came across this article earlier today and I posted it on my facebook status because I thought it was interesting. After about an hour, I had a few people commenting who seemed concerend that I would post such an article since the catholic church is opposed to stem cell research. (I come from a catholic upbringing)

So, I am wondering what do you guys think? Does the end justify the means?

I am also interested in any books that people have read about medical/science ethics.
 
Last edited:
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
Unfortunately that site appears to be unmoderated and contains crackpot articles on transhumanism, so be careful, some of the stuff is nutty, otherwise it contains good information. I hope you know the difference.

Stem cell research is vital and needed, IMHO. Religion should never interfere with science. Religion is merely a personal belief system, if those people do not want to take advantage of the technology, they do not have to.

They can believe whatever they wish as long as they do not try to impose their personal beliefs on others.

Is this the link you meant to post?

http://singularityhub.com/2010/06/07/hans-keirstead-transforms-embryonic-stem-cells-into-retinas/
 
  • #3
Evo said:
Unfortunately that site appears to be unmoderated and contains crackpot articles on transhumanism, so be careful, some of the stuff is nutty, otherwise it contains good information. I hope you know the difference.

Stem cell research is vital and needed, IMHO. Religion should never interfere with science. Religion is merely a personal belief system, if those people do not want to take advantage of the technology, they do not have to.

They can believe whatever they wish as long as they do not try to impose their personal beliefs on others.

Is this the link you meant to post?

http://singularityhub.com/2010/06/07/hans-keirstead-transforms-embryonic-stem-cells-into-retinas/

Yes thank you, that is the correct link.
Its tough to agree with you in that religion shouldn't interfere with science. I don't like that it prevents development of technology but at the same time I can understand why a religion would stand up against technology that infringes on its beliefs, especially when tax dollars fund a lot of research. In another forum the topic of induced pluripotent somatic cells came up, which seems to be somewhat promising in capability and also clearing up a lot of controversy on the topic.

Also, thanks for the warning about the website. The article listed a peer reviewed journal so I assumed the information in the article was good.
 
  • #4
So, I am wondering what do you guys think? Does the end justify the means?
What is that supposed to mean? Have you taken time out to think how the end even differs from the means? A popular and by no means original quote on television is: "When you choose the action, you choose the consequences." The end can no more justify the means than it can justify itself; the means constitute part of the end, in other words, part of what your moral choices are, part of what happens through your action. Among evils, you should choose the least that you can manage within your scheme of values.
This means among other things, that inaction, as a chosen course (as opposed to impotence, which is by definition ethically neutral) is simply one of a number of possible courses of action. It has its own consequences and accordingly its own responsibilities. Having chosen it as your course of action you have chosen any praise or blame, any guilt or reward, entailed by that action.
Justify? All that "justification" amounts to in your own system of ethics is the accordance of the consequences (both within "means" and within "end") with your personal system of values. To the extent that you are happy with the outcome, including emotional consequences of doing things that upset you or go against your better judgement perhaps, to that extent your action was justified. If I personally disapprove your judgement because of a conflict between our judgements, I might equally justifiably commit your soul to eternal damnation, or some similarlarly virtuous admonition always assuming that it lay within my power. Conversely, in the eyes of your contemporaries, associates or successors, it would be unjustified if they disagreed with your values (or in turn, mine).
Of course, there is the question of ethical logic. It is common for people to deny the role of logic in ethics, but that is universally stupid and wrong.
"Universally stupid and wrong? How do you prove that?"
Simple. If anyone says to you that you are wrong to base your conclusions on logic, simply say: "why do you say that?"
The reply is likely to take some form of: "because..."
Now, the very word "because" is an indication of implication as an argument. It might not be a valid argument, in fact it almost certainly will not be a valid argument in the circumstances, but an argument based on a logical operation anyway.
The only alternative open to them would be something along the lines of "Blah blah blackberreep!" It is virtuously logic-free, as nearly as value-driven action might be, but not really persuasive to most people, I feel...
Of course, the logic of ethics can be fairly tricky but the main principle apart from abstract logic in general, is that in the logic of ethics the main point is ultimately to establish the values associated with a given choice of action, in other words a given imperative in the relevant ethical system. Now, the catch is that one cannot validly deduce an imperative (in other words a command or commandment) in a conclusion without some form of imperative in the premises.
Get that clear, and a lot of other questions simply go away. They don't all go away of course; most religions, not only Catholicism, (in fact I can't think of any exceptions off hand, except some are simply too incoherent to evaluate meaningfully) impose imperatives, many of which are mutually conflicting if not downright incoherent.

I am also interested in any books that people have read about medical/science ethics.
It is not clear to me that you need any such book. The medical and scientific questions are technical. The ethical questions are considerations in moral philosophy, namely the modes of thought involved in the application of value judgements and choices of action. If you cannot present these in a cogent form, for example if the dogma on which you base your arguments proves on analysis to be logically flawed, meaningless or self-contradictory, then you may conclude what you please, and behave as you please, but in that case if you call your behaviour ethical you are living a lie. In particular if you are an adherent of any of the Abrahamic sects, then you are living a lie in the name of the God of truth (it says so repeatedly in the old testament, so don't blame ME!) It is surprising how many people do not find the idea uncomfortable; I certainly expect that it would bother me.
The medical and scientific questions, that is to say the technical questions, have to do with matters of fact. Medical applications go further in that medicine is an applied branch of scientific endeavour, and thereby if you like, of technology. It therefore also has intimately to do with choice and therefore ethics. It is intrinsic to medical ethics that the underlying values are intimately connected with the interests of the patient. (There are other parties involved as well of course, such as practitioners, experimental subjects, and many more, but ultimately questions concerning the patients are never far away.) But the other side of the coin is that any medical ethical consideration that conflicts directly with objective fact, is by that very conflict in violation of medical ethics. Of course we do not know all the facts, so we know that some of our decisions will turn out to be wrong, whether anyone ever realizes it or not. But as long as we base our judgements on the information at our disposal it is not clear how we ever can do better.
There are several good sources of generally fairly readable and useful information on philosophical matters on the web, and you can find a great deal by googling appropriate keywords. Apart from Wikipedia, two useful sites are:
plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
and
http://www.iep.utm.edu/

Enjoy!

Jon
 
Last edited:
  • #5


I believe that the scientific and medical community must always prioritize ethical considerations in their research and practices. The use of embryonic stem cells, while controversial, has shown great potential in treating a variety of diseases and conditions. However, it is important to also consider the ethical implications of using these cells and to continue exploring alternative methods.

In terms of the Catholic Church's stance on stem cell research, it is important to remember that religious beliefs should not dictate scientific progress. It is important to have open and respectful discussions about the ethical concerns surrounding this issue, but ultimately, the decision should be based on scientific evidence and potential benefits for human health.

Regarding the question of whether the end justifies the means, I believe that it is not a black and white issue. Each case must be carefully evaluated and ethical considerations should be at the forefront of decision making. In the case of stem cell research, the potential benefits to improving human health and saving lives must be weighed against the ethical concerns of using embryonic stem cells.

There are many books and resources available on medical and scientific ethics, and I encourage everyone to educate themselves on this important topic. Some recommendations include "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" by Rebecca Skloot and "The Ethics of Medical Research on Humans" by David Wendler.

In conclusion, as a scientist, I believe it is our responsibility to always consider the ethical implications of our research and to prioritize the well-being of all individuals. The debate on scientific and medical ethics will continue, but it is important for us to approach it with open minds and a commitment to ethical principles.
 

1. Where do you stand on the use of animal testing in scientific research?

As a scientist, I believe that the use of animal testing can be necessary in certain situations to advance medical and scientific knowledge. However, it is important for researchers to adhere to strict ethical guidelines and minimize the number of animals used, as well as ensure that they are treated humanely.

2. What is your opinion on the controversial topic of genetic engineering?

I believe that genetic engineering has the potential to greatly benefit society, but it must be approached with caution and careful consideration of ethical implications. It is important to have thorough testing and regulation in place to prevent potential negative consequences.

3. What is your stance on the use of placebos in medical experiments?

I believe that the use of placebos can be necessary in certain medical experiments to accurately measure the effectiveness of a treatment. However, it is crucial for participants to be fully informed and consent to their use, and for researchers to follow strict ethical guidelines.

4. How do you address conflicts of interest in scientific research?

Conflicts of interest in scientific research can be a complex issue, but it is important for researchers to disclose any potential conflicts and for institutions to have policies in place to address and manage them. Transparency and accountability are key in maintaining ethical standards.

5. What are your thoughts on the use of human subjects in medical experiments?

I believe that the use of human subjects in medical experiments should only be done with their full informed consent and with strict adherence to ethical guidelines. The safety and well-being of participants should always be the top priority, and their rights must be protected throughout the entire research process.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
11K
Back
Top