Customer Reviews

Life Liberty & the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The rapid growth in biotechnology has seen a corresponding growth in bioethics. Unfortunately, however, many bio-ethicists have become handmaidens to Big Biotech. The twin towers of technology and money have led many to abandon genuine independent ethical reflection. There have been too few voices to assess the latest trends in biotechnology in a wise, discerning and prudent manner.

One person who has done so is biologist and philosopher Leon Kass of the University of Chicago. He has spend a lifetime thinking about, and writing on, the new reproductive technologies and the challenges they present. And he has done so always with a view to the implications for human dignity and freedom. This volume, which includes articles which have appeared elsewhere, contains of wealth of information and ethical reflection on the new technologies.

All the major issues are covered here: cloning and stem cell research, IVF and assisted reproductive technologies, the new genetics, euthanasia and end of life decisions, and other recent developments in biotechnology.

Also carefully discussed are the hard questions: What is the moral status of the human embryo? Should there be limits to where we are heading in biology and technology? Are there areas of mystery in life that science should simply leave alone? Should autonomy, and the modern concept of human rights, trump other social and community concerns? What is the nature of medicine and what are its goals? These and other important ethical concerns are all given wise and careful consideration.

Kass examines the relationship between liberal democracies and the new technologies, for example, offering incisive and cautious reflection. He notes how democracies help create a climate which makes possible the growth of science and technology. But he also warns that without a moral vision of how that technology should proceed, there is the danger of commercial interests and utopian schemes derailing the science into undemocratic ends.

Indeed, since the time of the Enlightenment, an overly rationalist and utopian dream of the perfectibility of man has been pursued, often with disastrous consequences. Only by continually affirming the mystery and sacredness of life, and the dignity and wonder of man, can we prevent such coercive utopianism.

However, as Kass so clearly points out, the real threat is not coercive utopianism, but well-intentioned utopianism. That is, the real dangers come from those who speak of compassion, the relief of suffering and the battle for immortality. Says Kass, "the benevolent uses of humanitarian technologies often have serious unintended and undesired consequences." The promises of the relief of all suffering and the extension of life may sound pleasing to the ears, but can in fact bring bitterness to the soul.

Lost in the discussions of overcoming all problems and eradicating all unhealthiness, is the concept of the human person, of human dignity. To what end should we strive for immortality? What benefit will it be if we can live longer but not better lives? It is living well, not just living longer, that should preoccupy our minds and dreams. Yet the modern quest for perfection rarely addresses those more important concerns. Indeed, the modern rationalistic and secular march of science and technology often deliberately eschews any moral or religious considerations.

The whole problem of designer babies is another outcome of the new technologies. We now have the power to determine in advance how a baby can and should live. We not only have the power to change an individual's life through the new genetics, but generations to come. And with the new genetic medicine comes the power to decide who will live and who will die.

As we redefine a human being in terms of his or her genes, we run the risk of "justifying death solely for genetic sins". Genetic reductionism makes it easier, not harder, to allow experts and scientists to make the difficult choices of who is allowed to live. Eugenics, even if done with the best of intentions, is still eugenics. And the new eugenics is not so easily discerned, when it comes hidden behind a white lab coat or in an attractive fertility clinic.

The pressure of science and Big Biotech to simply do whatever can be done, without asking whether it should be done, will only continue. Especially when sold in the guise of relieving suffering, or offering more lifestyle choices. We have, as Kass says, the "biomedical equivalent of a spiraling arms race" where research and technology seem to know no limits. The consequences are frightening.

Kass concludes by acknowledging that he is not a Luddite, that there has been much good to come from the new technologies. But there is much to fear as well, especially if our scientific advances are not coupled with moral and spiritual growth. A perfect body, with a hole in the soul, may not be progress, but an unspeakable regress.

Which way the future unfolds is an open question at this point. The future in many ways is up to us. Do we allow a future with dignity and freedom, or do we passively accept the dehumanisation and depersonalisation that comes with unbridled scientific advance? The important warnings offered here need to be read and heeded, if we are to advance on the right course.

I fail to see how Sherman Durfee's rant qualifies as a book review as there seems to be no mention of the actual text. I'd like to address Mr. Durfee's concerns and then discuss the book.

Dr. Kass is an MD by training. He then went on to become a Professor at the U of Chicago with the Department of Social Thought (not a lecturer). While at the U of C, I never once saw him "prancing around," though he did once have a book signing - which seems normal for people who do things like, say, write books. His views would be considered by most to be conservative and thus "right-wing" since to people such as Durfee, the two are exactly the same. His views are thoughtful, though, and should be considered by anyone with an open mind. I imagine Dr. Kass has had to discuss his views with patients who suffer from neurologic diseases and doubt that he has any difficulty doing so. As a pathologist who sees all the horrible cases a hospital has while interacting with many scientists, I don't find it difficult to tell people certain treatments are morally wrong, and I have no where near the intellectual fortitude of Dr. Kass. Finally, I doubt if Dr. Kass works any less hard than Mr. Durfee's scientists who are "working overtime" and "toiling hours away." Mr. Durfee is either a scientist with an over-inflated idea of himself or an idealogue who has no idea how hard or why most scientists work. Mr. Durfee's biggest complaint is that the book has somehow insulted him. He has obviously not read it and instead insults anyone who might question the use of the sick and dying to justify all methods of scientific research.

Like his previous books, this book is timely and well-written. It is accessible to most people (who actually take the time to read it). It provides cogent arguments against some methods that many have come to agree with for the sake of the sick. It should be read by anyone who believes that the means are not always justified by the end and who is open to intellectual argument.

In his book Life, LIberty and the Defense of Dignity, Leon Kass cites a few times that 2/3rds of the population are opposed to cloning. Well, I am not one of them. There is much to disagree with here and I've done much of it. But unlike those shoddy books like Fukuyama's Our Posthuman Future, or Bill McKibben's laughable diatribe, Enough, I can disagree with Kass while still respecting him as a thinker. I even nod my head at some of his points.

About half of this book deals with abstract, and half, concrete, issues. His abstract sections I was almost in total agreement with. Ethical philosophy, he writes, long ago lost track of how to deal with issues rather than theories, and real peoople rather than 'rational man' constructs. Minutia is argued on a quest to develop a consistent theory of the human right and good. BUT NO SUCH THEORY NEED TO BE CREATED! We are dealing with people who make most decisions on a hearty combination of feeling (not amenable to intellectualization) and rational thought. This is where Kass comes from.

Add to this that biology has gone on so well with the reductionist program that even it has started to lose track of how to deal with the whole person. Like wantling to understand a person-in-full by studying the small minutia of their lives seperately, event-by-event; you won't get the feel of the whole person that way; she must be studied as a whole person. Biology, by breaking us down to the smallest constituent parts, don't explain us, so much as break us down to the type of bite-sized chunks they find helpful in THEIR studies.

So Kass starts from the philosophy of the whole person. It is here that I feel he uses this more as an excuse to be inarticulate than a tool to REALLY examine the issue. Whether it is cloning, euthenasia, the selling of organs; he keeps taling about how our human dignity is threatened but never even attempts to explain what in the world he means.

He argues that our instinctual revulsion to such processes may reflect a deeper wisdom that intellect can't articulate. But didn't we also feel revulsion to the idea of heart transplants too? Many of us feel revulsed by the very idea of surgery (going under the knife and all). Does that mean that we are expressing a 'deeper wisdom' and should not have surgury at all? I think our revulsion to biotech comes more from the thought of the unknown and our desire to hold on to the "natural order of things".

Life, he tells us, is precious. Thus, we must be very careful with how we treat it. I agree. But why does it follow that we have to, then, leave birth up to the chance process that causes miscarriages, deformities, premature deaths, and...let's be honest...unwanted babies that may well grow up to abuse? And why does it follow that an old woman who is nearing a painful end to her life (with only a glimpse of hope for recovery) be made to live out her last days when she wants to end it?

To be sure, there are quite a few philosophers who are just as sensitive to human dignity as Kass is who take the opposite conclusions. John Lachs ("Community of Individuals", "Relevance of Philosophy to Life") and Sidney Hook ("Convictions") are two notable examples.

To close, though I agree with Kass's theoretical goals, I disagree on virually everything else. This book, though, is professionally writte, gives some (some, that is) strong points and never comes off as zeolous, abrasive, or mean-spirited toward critics. Read this - even if you don't agree with Kass.

This is a book that anyone worried about the brave new world that awaits us ought to read. Kass is heads and shoulders above all the others who have written about the dilemmas of bioethics. He has a certain reassuring melancholy in the face of all the febrile assurances that we are entering a paradise of longevity and health through stem cells. He shows that the subject of bioethics cannot be approached without a strong understanding that by toying with God's creation we are arrogating to ourselves the power of God--and that, since the Greeks, has been a prescription for disaster.

Leon Kass is a wise and humane thinker. As a physician and as a moral philosopher he is uniquely qualified to deal with the issues being raised by the latest biotechnological developments. His concern is to preserve the freedom and dignity of humanity, against the unthinking onslaught of the ' improvements ' that may destroy us.
It seems to me that his goal is admirable and his arguments strong, but that the marketplace of technological one up-man-ship and human pride greed and ambition will not prevent many different kinds of ' progress' for a few that will be detrimental to all. Even if Kass were to succeed within the United States in restraining certain kinds of research, there would be no stopping teams of researchers elsewhere who would for profit and glory produce ' designer babies' and ' new forms of machine- man hybrid life' and ' indefinitely long - lifed human beings' and countless other developments which again might seem beneficial for a few but which will be detrimental to our common humanity.
Kass is a clear and convincing writer in discussing a whole host of issues in regard to what we may do to ourselves in our laboratory future. This book is highly recommended if only because it will enrich the reader's sense of what is presently at stake, and what might possibly be done to make us more human not less

Life and dignity of it concern this author. As well, science and its advancement concern him greatly. What this book concerns itself with are the intersection of the two.

What Kass fears are that the two are moving in opposing directions, i.e. that science has moved beyond boundaries of investigating life in a dignified, respectful manner of life into an self fulfilling control and power over life.

He offers some foretaste of what could come in this statment: "Genetic technology, the practices it will engender, and above all the scientific teachings about human life on whit it rests are not, as many would have it, morally and humanly neutral. Regardless of how they are practiced or taught, they are pregnant with their own moral meaning, and will necessarily bring with them changes in our practices, our institutions, our norms, our beliefs and our self-conception. It is, I submit, these challenges to our dignity and humanity that are at the bottom of our anxiety over genetic science and technology."

He summarizes his concerns with the future of science in terms of boundaries and limits: pursuring limitless goals which many in culture has concerns about; props up artificial boundaries that are not true to life, thus working out of touch with reality; unsensitive to defeiencies of human reason and mysteries of life, its very subject.

He writes with concern that is balanced, spending time to put forward the other side's opinions and objections and desires and rights. And that's his real point, that we consider his main concern of life and its dignity.

Worth the read, although it is somewhat tedious at points, especially first half till get to current euthanasia and abortion.

It is just as easy to dismiss Kass, now head of the President's Council for Bioethics, as a "technophobe" searching for justification. The opposite is true: while the groundwork for modern bio-deontological thought is firmly in place in the writings of the founding bioethical and environmental scholars, such writings are largely unapproachable to the layperson, analytic rather than continental in approach.

Kass does just the opposite. In the spirit of CS Lewis and his "The Abolition of Man," which Kass references, Kass paints a clear and understandable picture, suitable as an introduction to the subject. However, such a statement is misleading: the book is by no means just an introduction. Simply, Kass sets out to synthesize a workable and, more importantly, objective ethos that is not simply "ivory-tower," but applicable in day-to-day functioning. That such a book is coherant and pleasurable to read is simply icing on the cake.

If your someone who believes there are simplistic,easy rational answers to lifes deeper problems and that experts should be the ones to decide for the rest of society what those answers are then this book is not for you. But if you are like me and believe that biotechnology is troublesome challenge and that all Americans should have serious questions about then this book is about as probing as it gets.
I understand other reviewers who perhaps rated this book poorly because they have difficulty contemplating issues that may be disturbing, ambiguous=perhaps they prefer to live in a simplistic world where experts make all the decisions without them having to struggle with issues on stem cell research, the definition of life, the proper use of technology. Emotions can be difficult to deal with when it comes to issues of what is life-but to "einschrankung" or reduce the issues to mere rational analysis would be tantamount to converting into a simple mathematical problem. Biotechnology problems are more complicated then that and Kass has a deep appreciation for making sure the human element is considred in thinking about such issues. Its understandable how some reader who have been trained in engineering that the emotional and human factor is irrelevant-that it should be just a matter of utilitarianism-they have been educated not broadly-and probably have a narrow minded view of what it is to be human. But biotechnology issues cannot be reduced to mere technocratic calculation.But with more then a few journals and books pointing to how technologically illiterate the average American is books like Kass's invite the reader to become more literate and to feel their opinions matter. This book is also good from a critical media literacy perspective as Kass utilizes the idea of this and critical discourse analysis. Alonmg with Anthony Giddens and Zygmaunt Bauman Mr Kass is an expert wo is secure enough in his views to invite the reader to do their own independent thinking- too often books are written by infallible experts who believe that readers role is to be a mere receptacle of expert opinion. Mr Kas i someone who thru his books and articles has been engaged in these issues for a long time-as should all Americans. This book serves as a launching pad for readers to deeply engage on issues that should not be left to expperts who often make little if antyy effort to listen to the concerns of Americans.
I regret that some readers prefer to quickly close their mind on issues that require deep sustained thought that neither ideology alone nor so called expertise can easily or quickly resolve.

Dr. Kass has here given us a calm, clearly reasoned, and ultimately reasonable discourse on bioethics and particularly that corner of the realm in which we--humans--find ourselves making new ways of making humans, and in the process making humans cheap. One may rant about Dr. Kass and his work--as at least one "reviewer" herein has done--but Dr. Kass remains, I'm glad to say, above invective and froth. This book is, quite simply, the best available to us on a most important topic. It should be required reading for all.

Moral questions regarding sanctity of life are sometimes larger than life itself. The debatable question is how to define life itself. Is a person in persistent vegetative state not alive? That depends on whether you consider life as being synonymous with the seat of consciousness - which is highly debatable. Yes, the mind defines our thoughts and shapes our identity but it can also be argued that the cerebral cortex should not be taken as what determines the distinction between life and death since the mind is only a part of every living individual. On the other hand questions regarding quality and dignity of life are not mutually exclusive from the question of end of life issues. Every individual should have the power to determine their end of life choices but only within the realms of the law of the land. It agains boils down to the urgent need for religion to meet with the realities of an ever changing modern world in a non-confrontational manner and if the need be, redifine the law of the land by the appropriate process.