The Medical Technologies - Essay Example

Full Physical Sciences 2 (Critical Thinking: Bioethics) 11 October (estimated word count 676) Introduction New advances in medical technologies represent a great stride for mankind, in such ways as to improve the quality of life as well as prolong life itself with the discovery of drugs that can treat previously fatal ailments but are now managed properly with medicines. In the same manner, these technological advances present new opportunities in a large number in the other fields of endeavor, such as crime solution with the use of fingerprinting and of the DNA samples obtained from bodily fluids such as saliva, semen, and blood. Medical advances can be quite rapid such that laws cannot keep pace with these new techniques and discoveries, and in some instances, present ethical dilemmas. Examples are issues concerning with euthanasia (mercy killing, whether voluntary or not), organ donations and transplantation, the assisted reproductive technologies or ART (such as in-vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood) or the use of medical knowledge to implement capital punishment (in a humane or painless way) like using a cocktail of drugs for use in lethal injections (anesthesia, sedative and relaxants) or use of artificial respirators to keep comatose patients perpetually alive despite having fallen to a permanent vegetative state or PVS where there is no more any detectable brain activity. This paper discusses the elements of the scientific method which is widely used in a determination of a number of things to help explain any observed physical phenomenon. It also discusses two bioethics issues which are especially relevant today, surrogate motherhood and capital punishment. The first issue is a relatively new phenomenon due to the advances in medical technologies regarding human reproduction while the second issue is an old one that has divided many people almost since time immemorial regarding its use and propriety. Discussion 1. The proposed steps to be followed using the scientific method to test the hypothesis is outlined in the following procedures as shown below: a. First, have two groups of puppies (maybe 6 puppies to each group) and weigh each one of these puppies individually, noting their weight and other observable criteria like the state of growth of their teeth, the sheen of their fur, and alertness when responding to certain simple commands, to make sure each group is comparable to the other. b. Make a hypothesis that a vegetarian dog diet especially formulated by the company is much better compared to the meat-based dog food of a competitor firm. c. Conduct some research by looking for existing literature on the matter of dog diets and review the results of some experiments previously conducted on the same matter. d. The initial hypothesis is re-formulated to make it more specific, that is, a vegetarian diet is better than the common wisdom that a meat-based diet is best for puppies. e. Perform the actual experiment by segregating the two groups of puppies: the first is the control group which will be feed the meat diet while the second groups will be the experimental group feed on the newly-formulated vegetarian diet. f. Record the two groups progress and development, using weight, teeth and sheen as the criteria for measurement, at intervals of one week for up to four weeks. g. Compare the data of the two groups, to determine which showed superior features or characteristics after being fed their respective diets for the four-week duration. h. Analyze the data using statistical tools or methods, avoiding any confounding data or elements. The only dependent variable is the type of diet, others factors the same. i. Generalize the findings and publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal. 2. I do not think surrogate pregnancy (or gestational surrogacy) is a form of baby selling. This is because strictly speaking, what is being negotiated between the parties is not the baby itself (such as the neonate or newly-born baby) but rather what is called euphemistically as “womb renting” wherein the womb of the surrogate is rented out (Shannon & Kockler 100) during the gestation period, up to the first few weeks after birth in which the baby is breastfeed until it is old enough to be weaned on baby milk formula. This is admittedly quite an unusual arrangement because this is not the conventional or traditional way in which babies are conceived and born. Advances in human medical reproductive technology has allowed this unusual situation to occur and it is a big help to couples who cannot conceived by natural means. Couples (whether married or not) or in the case of same-sex couples, who desperately wanted a child but cannot do so through the usual means are now given a new avenue by which to have kids of their own because of science. It would be unfair to them to deny this opportunity just due to some ethical reasons when there is nothing apparently wrong with this practice. These couples, with their own reasons, may opt to have babies through biological means rather than resort to some other ways such as through adoption. It is their prerogative and right to avail of these assisted reproductive technologies because they are also entitled to their own happiness to be parents in the real sense. Although in most cases, gestational surrogacy can be likened to a contract similar to commercial transactions, it is alright to have this arrangement as long as the surrogate mother, enters into an agreement voluntarily. This is the real determinant on the propriety of this arrangement, that the woman agreed to be the surrogate mother on her own free will and nobody had compelled her to do it. It is therefore not morally wrong but some people will raise ethical questions on it just because it is new. On a corollary question of whether the practice of gestational surrogate motherhood should be banned or not, my opinion is that this should be allowed so people can be happy or contented with this new medical technology. The same moral dilemma had been encountered before, like in the case of organ transplants. Before transplantation was made possible through advances in medical knowledge and technologies, it was also considered as morally wrong to harvest the healthy organs of dead people. Those who initially opposed the organ transplants cited their reason that taking the organs of dead persons is a desecration of the dead but today, many people have signed up to be organ donors on their own free accord. It is now taken as a common practice and nobody questions organ donations, unlike before, when it was still new. It is such a great waste to just bury healthy organs with the dead, when these organs can benefit other people who desperately need new organs to replace their diseased or failing organs and give them a new lease on life. People today have a new sense of commitment with regards to helping other people, to look beyond their own welfare and contribute in some way to the happiness of other people, who might be their relatives or even a complete stranger. It is not morally wrong to give ones organs because these organs belong to that person and he or she is free whatever that person wants to do with his or her organs, whether dead or alive. What is just strictly prohibited under the terms of organ donations is the practice of selling organs, because it results into the illegal trafficking of organs and punishable by laws. The sale of organs can result in inequity and injustice, in the sense that the scarcity of viable organs creates a very long waiting list of patients, depending on their tissue and blood match, and it will create a situation where only the rich people can afford to buy organs on the market although admittedly, there have been serious proposals to create precisely a market of organs. Gestational surrogacy faces a same dilemma but from an act utilitarianism viewpoint, it gives a lot of utility or usefulness, the greatest happiness to a greater number, with the least harm. 3. I agree very wholeheartedly that as a general rule, no one should pass judgment or kill anybody as a result thereof. Any form of killing, whether it is abortion, euthanasia, the so-called preemptive wars or capital punishment should not be done, ordinarily in the course of human affairs. However, even the bible seems to justify capital punishment as it is mentioned several times, and ancient history also records execution as justified, such as the Hammurabi Code of Law as promulgated by this Amorite king who lived at around 1750 B.C.E. (before current era). He conquered Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) and made Babylon his imperial capital while he is most famous for his “an eye for an eye; and a tooth for a tooth” set of laws to ensure justice (Pearson 13). In the modern times, America is the only major Western democratic nation that still allows execution of criminals. Admittedly, no normal person relishes killing somebody, such that even a former mayor of New York City, Edward I. Koch, compared it to cancer treatment that is evil but necessary (Koch 1); it is never a pleasant topic. I would have used Kantian moral philosophy as the basis for a stand against capital punishment but it is not very workable because his moral imperatives allow for no exceptions, and yet often killing another person can be justified in certain extreme circumstances. This means for every rule, there is also an exception. Abortion can be justified in certain situations, such as when the mothers health is at risk, euthanasia is also acceptable whenever any dying person wants to end his suffering, especially in terminally-ill cases. Preemptive war is also justified, such as removing Saddam Hussein because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), except no WMD was found. Capital punishment, justified by former mayor Koch, is actually a re-affirmation of life, because it discourages all recidivist criminals from ever striking again. Rule utilitarianism (consequentialism) is justified in using death penalty as an exception to the general rule of not taking life. Conclusion Ethics has been used in medicine because technological advances had considerably altered how people today view life, happiness, and death. Moral philosophy has also seeped into other areas of human endeavor, such as in businesses today, where it is now enshrined in the so-called corporate social responsibility (CSR) of most globally-competitive firms in their bid to justify their global presence, and as a way to give back to the communities where they operate. There will always be disagreements on the use of the death penalty in any society for all time because some people deviate from social rules and society has to protect itself too. In the same manner, surrogate motherhood will likely become normal practice in the near future, as more people embrace it. In fact, in some poor countries, women offer themselves as womb factories in order to alleviate their poverty and see nothing wrong with it. Ethics will help the people decide on these moral minefields if they use ethical principles correctly. Works Cited Koch, Edward I. “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life.” The New Republic, 15 Apr. 1985. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. . Pearson, Rebecca L. Documents in Western Civilization. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall, 2003. Print.. Shannon, Thomas A. and Nicholas J. Kockler. An Introduction to Bioethics. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Paulist Press, 1979. Print. Read More