|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Euthanasia and Prenatal Genetic Testing: Two Cases for Responsible Use of Freedom
| Article
# : |
10809 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
3 / 1993 |
4,791 Words |
| Author
: |
Stephen G. Post
Stephen G. Post is assistant professor of medical humanities
at the Center for Biomedical Ethics, Case Western Reserve
University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio. |
Even in a pluralistic culture, it is possible to accept common minimal principles of ethics such as non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. But when these universal principles are applied through the filters of many interpretive worldviews, considerable moral relativism persists.
For example, we may all agree on the principle of nonmaleficence ("do no harm") but disagree on whether this principle applies to the human fetus at conception, at quickening, at viability, or even at birth. We may disagree about who is dead and therefore no longer under the protective umbrella of nonmaleficence, for some people accept whole-brain definitions of death, and others hew to traditional views (e.g., Orthodox Jews and most Japanese). We may hold to egalitarianism with respect to sentient species so strongly that out eating the meat of nonhuman animals is judged pernicious. My point is obvious: Consensus about a principle of this does not eliminate moral relativism, due to the central place of interpretation in valuing life.
In a free society, that is, one that understands ground gained for individual conscience as ground appropriately lost to the state, there are few moral positions that should be widely enforced. Law exists to establish the minimal restrictions on behavior that prevent harm and separate social experience from the "war of all against all." It neither enforces moral idealism nor resolves many of the quandaries of human conscience. Yet it is still advisable that we discuss as free individuals the available moral and ethical arguments so that out freedom is informed and competently expressed. The libertarian should find no reason to lament such considerations so long as choice is left to personal conscience.
In the field of biomedical ethics, there are at least two major issues for the 1990s: euthanasia (mercy killing) and prenatal genetic testing, including the issue of the Human Genome Project, which may one day soon allow genetic testing to become widespread. With respect to genetic information, it has been argued that anyone should have any and all information he or she desires in the context of both prenatal and presymptomatic carrier screening. With respect to euthanasia, it has been argued that any competent human being has a right to decide on the moment of death and to implement his or her desire, either through assisted suicide or mercy killing. I will suggest that in both these areas ideological distortions occur.
THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT AND GENETIC TESTING
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
