Bioethics and Longevity - Term Paper Example

? Philosophy: Bio Ethics and Longevity Philosophy: Bio Ethics and Longevity Introduction One of the most coveted things nowadays is living a long life, whether it will be a good or a bad life that is of no importance. It is amazing, how people look for ideas to add years to their lives. But come to think of it, people really do not understand the consequences that this brings to them or those around them. Many are principles or studies that describe how to live a long life, but few actually give full evidence of this and some are just too obvious that it can never work. The idea of extending human lifespan has captivated scientists, philosophers and writers for a long time now. Moreover, ethicists have argued whether people should take a step to increase human longevity, which is not surprising. This is in consideration of the persistent media interest in research in to preventing or slowing ageing. Taking note of that, this paper will briefly summarize the ethical arguments that arose from this debate, with a focus on a recent case study on Life-extension and its effects on memory and learning (on worms). Finally, it will give a summary of critique of the case study as well as the personal opinion or ethical stand. 1. Summary Case study: Life-extension and its effect on memory and learning (on worms) The focus of the case study is on two methods to increase the longevity of various organisms - calorie restriction and alteration hormone insulin. It claims that research has shown that, reducing activity related to the insulin signal pathway impact longevity positively. Several biological processes such as metabolism, development and stress response are triggered by the change of insulin signal pathway.1 A group of Biologists from Princeton recently found that, altering these mechanisms do also have some consequences on the organisms’ cognitive function and their research also revealed that calorie restriction and reduced insulin signaling is linked to reduced memory and learning as the organism grow old, which calls for development of a special treatment to avoid memory loss if people are to live longer. According to Coleen Murphy, longevity research works on the assumption that people who are able to live longer should have their bodies function equally well for the additional years. Collectively with her research team, they found out that calorie restriction had some severe effect on the lasting memory of C.elegans roundworms. To their surprise, the worms only suffered from impairment to long-term memory, but did not encounter any reduction in memory with age. Consequently, this means that gradual memory loss can be fought by calorie restrictions. On another front, the worms that were experimented with generic mutation reduced insulin active, signaling insulin activity. This experiment improved learning ability with age, but the worms were not secured from age-related reduction in long-term memory. These worms were used because their molecular mechanisms which governed these worms were alike to higher organism like mammals, and this has provided a promising hope for cognitive research on humans. Definition(s) Cognitive is based on or related to or involving reasoning or thinking, which is an activity of the mind. Indeed, Murphy’s team has done a tremendous job, but they have to be sure that it will apply to human beings as well and how they can overcome the reduction in learning and memory of these worms in question. The information that human’s genes are likened with those of C.elegans, enabled treatment of negative cognitive alteration in relation to longevity extension of the worms, which is an answer to humans research. This study poses big questions. Will there be equity in access to this intervention once it is out? How does it impact our morality as human beings? Is the use of worms as having the same memory as human beings ethical? The following principles and academic papers try to take these questions into consideration. 2. Philosophical principles Horrobin2 From the above case study, it is clearly shown that biotechnology always tries to put forward ways to stop ageing process, which is OK, but the way it is done poses a lot of questions. In fact, let us just say it is improper. Many are against it. Conservative critics of biotechnology argue that this would be in contrast to the natural order of things, and it would be going against divine law. These conservatives have even gone to the extent of taking ‘pro-life’ stances on issues like stem-cell debate and abortion and are deeply concerned with human intervention in natural processes like reproduction and ageing. Some prominent ethicists, the likes of Francis Fukuyama and Leon Kass, have always rallied behind an adherence to traditional human expectancy, explaining that interfering with the ageing process results to ‘playing God.’ Academic articles Davis3 Davis points out that it would have been better if every other person could possibly access these interventions and benefit from them, but that is not always the case. It is only the minority and the most affluent members of the society. He argues that it is not morally right to deny access to every other human being and to him, a better strategy is to make life-extension interventions available as “justly and widely” as possible. President’s Council on bioethics4 This group argues that the human cycle has an inherent worth and that, age extension technologies distort or pervert the ‘natural’ or ‘proper’ human lifespan. They continue to explain that humanity is defined by the various stages of the human life cycle; birth, childhood, teenage years, adulthood, old age and death that are all inseparable details of human nature. In addition, the natural-law line of reasoning argues that what endows us with qualities that are vital to our humanity is the current human lifespan, which is a product of evolution. De Grey5 De Grey seems to take a different perspective that I think makes sense to some extent. He argues that it is hard to ban technologies based on life-extension because they have demonstrated huge health benefits. He also states that a healthy human has a basic right to have a long life, even if it is indefinite, therefore, to enjoy this right; we have an obligation to pursue research into anti-ageing and life-extension technologies. De Grey points out that with the existence of life-threatening diseases, there is a need to save lives of the victims through application of all available treatments. He further asserts that, there is no difference between the moral obligation to ‘safe’ life and the moral obligation to ‘extend’ it. 3. Application of principles to the case study and other issues According to Horobin, interfering with the ageing process amounts to ‘playing God,’ which I totally agree. Biblically, death comes to everyone and it is deemed to come in old age, so why should someone want to extend it? We are going to die eventually anyway. Davies argues that it would have been great if access to life-extension was or is going to be available to every other person and not the rich only. I concur with them on the basis that these resources should also be ethical and not to interfere with human morality. President’s Council on bioethics: With this group’s stand on respect for human life cycle; birth, infancy, puberty, adulthood, old age and death, they see age extension technologies as pervasive, which is true. I hold the opinion that it is improper to interfere with human lifespan because these researchers do not usually look at the societal impact of implementing life extension. De Grey argues that we should demand the medical community to develop new and better treatment to save lives of those infected with life-threatening illnesses, which I agree. But some people may take advantage and invent life-extensions. When De Grey went ahead and said that saving lives and extending it is a moral obligation, I take a different angle. Why should we extend life that is not worth? Who really want to live beyond 120 years or who will be able to take care of 120+ year old? Not that I am against long life, but I am just looking at the bigger picture of the consequences of life-extensions. In regard to the principle of ‘playing God’ I have discussed above, it is indeed not ethical to extend life beyond the set human lifespan because it is beyond our control, only God can control our lives. Therefore, we should not invest too much money and time on something that may not even come to solve the problems. Conclusion It is true that we cherish long life and we always want to make sure that we do what it takes to make us live longer. What we have never thought of are the consequences of the great lengths. Biologists come with different ways each day, which can also be expensive especially for the under privileged members of the society. Most of these interventions usually are unethical or do not make sense at all. I am not against research, but the use of tapeworms is ridiculous. How can we think that we may have the same brain as worms? This does not look promising in terms of its effectiveness and also its accessibility. Who knows? It might take forever to materialize. The various academic articles on these issues show that majority of people are against longevity of life as it has huge impact. In my opinion, before we think of life-extension inventions, we should first look at the personal its consequences, the principle ethical objections to the pursuit of life-extension, enhancement versus therapy, the unfairness of pursuing life-extension research, the societal impact of implementing life-extension, the conflict between personal morals and desires and equity of access to life-extension interventions. In short, it can be daunting to follow those procedures, so we should just let the human life cycle take control that way, maybe we will live up to 120 years, something that only a few have achieved. If researchers really want us to use these interventions, then they need to step up on their research because the current ones, to my knowledge do not work. Bibliography Davis, John. “Life-extension and the Malthusian objection”Journal of Med Philos 30 (2005): 27-44. De Grey, AD. “Life extensions, human rights, and the rationale refinement of repugnance” Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (2005): 659-63. Horrobin, Steven. “On being a person through time: The Value of Life and the Value of Life Extension.” Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1067(2008): 94–105. President's Council on Bioethics. “Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness.” New York: Dana, 2003. Read More