Public Debate on Genetic Modification
Ethics, Medical March 12th, 2008I just attended a public debate on genetic modification. It went into more technical depth than I was expecting – this was a pleasant surprise. Since the panel were mainly medical professionals or scientific journalists, there was no instant rejection of genetic modification. This allowed what I consider a rational discussion of current and future possibilities. Of course, I am aware that some hold the view that genetic modification is not rational or moral. Various terms in the debate are emotionally charged and usually impairs rational discussion.
A few interesting points:
When asked, most of the audience would not allow direct genetic modification to screen for eye colour of children – but we do this passively anyway because we (usually) have free selection of our mate. This allows crude selection of genes that give certain aesthetic characteristics e.g. eye colour, height, beauty. (Sexual selection theory)
What is the difference between genetic modification and eugenics? Current medical practice is based on informed decisions by individuals rather than state compulsion.
One opinion: as long as it is safe, it should be allowed. Government interference should be minimized.
One observation: medical ethics are mostly concerned with the good of an individual. Most questions about the long term effect on society were not discussed in depth. One valid point was genetic modification was no different to medicine generally. Medicine has radically extended life spans and changed society. To rule out genetic manipulation would be inconsistent with precedent.
My view: people should have maximal personal responsibility. But I suspect most or all (including me) would be greatly burdened to take responsibility for this freedom. “…[S]uch a destiny of a task compels one to run into the sunlight at every opportunity to shake off a heavy, all-too-heavy seriousness.” (Nietzsche.) For example, some cultures would select male children because they are considered “more useful”. (An untimely thought: could a very patient terrorist insert harmful genes into a target population? You heard it here first.) If we had wide free choice, would children all look like celebrites (and out of date ones at that)? I don’t want some special interest group to mess up the gene pool, thank you very much.
Anti Citizen One
March 14th, 2008 at 12:50 am
- went into more technical depth than I was expecting
picky point go to more public debates (my sort i.e. those of us who worry about it and seek to justify it for or against will investigate it indepth). – gald you enjoyed the depth though.
-Current medical practice is based on informed decisions by individuals rather than state compulsion.
To me this is with respects a cognitive relativistic perspective a good thing. There are a variety of “opinions” and more formally established “worldviews” (i.e. religion/marxism etc.). So an informed personalist approach that respects the individuals evaluation of what is best for them is ideal. In my opinion anything less (in the field of medical issues is tyranny – nobody should lose the autonomy in medical situations to chose what is done to them).
>as long as it is safe, it should be allowed. Government interference should be minimized.
To the latter yes. To the former questionable. You can theoretically make anything safe if you try hard enough?? (Just compare it to something blatantly dangerous surely).
I could murder someone safely! (Safe to me and everyone other than the victim) I guess the point is clarify “safe”.
-One observation: medical ethics are mostly concerned with the good of an individual.
I disagree, medical ethics mostly is consequentialist and emphasises social responsibility/effects.
But- the key issue that almost all medical ethics discourses focus on is personal autonomy primarily. Thus in public debates rhetorically it has more impact to ask “What would you do in this situation if it was happening to you?” as opposed to “what would you do if this was happening to some stranger”.
(This rhetorical observation gives some hint as to why logical atomists tend to reduce ethics to emotional utterances – x is good = x is what I like).
-My view: people should have maximal personal responsibility. But I suspect most or all (including me) would be greatly burdened to take responsibility for this freedom.-
I agree with both statements. To the first we share similar moral prerogatives. To the second we would probably offer different metaethical and prescriptive responses as to how this “burden” can be alleviated or justified.
Characteristic of almost all prescriptive ethics is its burdensome or challenging nature (“but why shouldbt I do preciesly as I want to do?”)
March 14th, 2008 at 9:40 am
“I disagree, medical ethics mostly is consequentialist and emphasises social responsibility/effects.”
I was stating the view of the panel in this case.
AC1
March 28th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
[...] matter, other than a comment by me on the issue of rhetoric in ethical debate, and Ac-1’s review of a public debate on genetic modification, is born out of two things. Firstly the acceptance that [...]