We tend to give utilitarianism a hard time in “Pointed Remarks”. But sometimes we could do with a bit more utilitarianism. It might keep the media – and many doctors, too – from being so dewy-eyed about apparent successes. Take IVF, which celebrated, so to speak, its 40th anniversary this week, with the birthday of Louise Brown.
In some respects, IVF has been quite a success. An estimated 8 million IVF children have been born since then. A thriving industry has grown up, worth some US$15 billion, making lots of doctors, scientists, technicians and administrators very wealthy. That is the happiness side of the ledger.
But how about the women who endured cycle after cycle of IVF without conceiving? Their lives have been filled with suffering as a result. And there are far more of them than women who eventually conceived. How about the destruction of millions upon millions of human embryos? And how about the disturbing future of IVF – designer babies and genetically-engineered children? That is the pain side of the ledger. It hasn’t been quantified, of course, but it must be acknowledged. I would venture to say that the balance is negative.
Whether I’m right or wrong about that, I do think that we need a clearer vision of the negative side of assisted reproductive technology.
In some respects, IVF has been quite a success. An estimated 8 million IVF children have been born since then. A thriving industry has grown up, worth some US$15 billion, making lots of doctors, scientists, technicians and administrators very wealthy. That is the happiness side of the ledger.
But how about the women who endured cycle after cycle of IVF without conceiving? Their lives have been filled with suffering as a result. And there are far more of them than women who eventually conceived. How about the destruction of millions upon millions of human embryos? And how about the disturbing future of IVF – designer babies and genetically-engineered children? That is the pain side of the ledger. It hasn’t been quantified, of course, but it must be acknowledged. I would venture to say that the balance is negative.
Whether I’m right or wrong about that, I do think that we need a clearer vision of the negative side of assisted reproductive technology.
 Michael Cook Editor BioEdge |  |  |  |
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Jul 28, 2018
Mixing the "desperation" of couples for a child and the "avarice" of private practice is a "dangerous combination".by Michael Cook | Jul 28, 2018
Most humans are chimerasby Michael Cook | Jul 28, 2018
Some feel the ban went too farby Michael Cook | Jul 28, 2018
And finds that it is not pleasantby Xavier Symons | Jul 28, 2018
Recent contributions to the literature have been particularly strident.by Xavier Symons | Jul 28, 2018
Authorities are now pro-natalist -- but Chinese society is not.by Michael Cook | Jul 27, 2018
Latest official report reveals reasonsby Michael Cook | Jul 27, 2018
And only one-third have been successfulIN DEPTH THIS WEEK
by Gary Lewis | Jul 27, 2018
Predatory journals masquerade as legitimate, mainstream journalsBioethicist says conscientious objection may be murder
by Xavier Symons | 28 Jul 2018 |
Conscientious objection has been a hotly debated topic in bioethics for several years. Yet recent contributions to the literature have been particularly strident. A series of new articles in the American Journal of Bioethics strongly criticise healthcare professionals and institutions who object to abortion, effectively telling them to exit the profession or face punitive measures.
The target article for the edition -- a legal perspective on the conscientious objection written by Santa Clara University philosopher and legal scholar Lawrence Nelson -- argues that conscientious objectors may be guilty of no less than murder if they fail to help a woman in need of an emergency abortion. Nelson suggests that religious liberty is no justification for refusal to participate in abortion, and he suggests that any laws permitting such conscience based refusals are unconstitutional. He concludes his article by exhorting state authorities to prosecute healthcare professionals and administrators who wilfully deny women access abortion:
"...if the American criminal justice system is to honor its constitutional duty to give women the equal protection of the laws, it should prosecute those who fail to honor their legal duty to provide an abortion when a woman’s life depends on it."
Several other contributors argue that that there is no moral justification for conscientious objection to the provision of basic medical services. Bioethicists Udo Schuklenk and Benjamin Zolf argue that conscience based refusals put the physician interests before patient welfare, and thus violate one of the basic goals of medical practice. Mark Wicclair, an adjunct professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, argues that conscience based refusals should only be permitted where they do not impede a patient’s timely access to healthcare services.
Rosamond Rhodes (Mount Sinai School of Medicine) and Michael Danzinger (SUNY Downstate Medical Center College of Medicine) argue that both doctors and hospitals are failing to fulfill a moral duty when they refuse to provide medically indicated treatments, such as abortions, for their patients:
“...Doctors who expect patients to suffer affront, inconvenience, or physical harm, so that they may avoid fulfilling their moral duty, act in a way that is incompatible with being a doctor because being a doctor involves the commitment to putting the welfare of patients before one’s own…”
They effectively state that religious healthcare providers that refuse to provide “accepted medical procedures” should exit the health sector:
"...If any religious group finds the performance of legal and professionally accepted medical procedures to be in opposition to their core religious beliefs, they can get out of the hospital business…"
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario