BioETHICS?
Throughout the virtual reams of opinion and testimony about the Terri Schiavo case, I’ve seen a LOT of material about something that I think needs to be addressed somehow–the field of “bioethics” and its nearly monolithic point of view. Not necessarily an “ethical” point of view, either; it is most definitely not objective, and clearly biased toward certain ideals. A good example of a “bioethicist”: Dr. Ronald Cranford, the neurologist who pronounced Terri Schiavo’s life worthless, isn’t only a neurologist but also a bioethicist. He’s also (as has been noted here and countless other places previously) been associated with the Hemlock Society, on the Board of Directors for pro-euthanasia groups, and so on.
How did these people get the name “bioethicist”? And what IS bioethics? Dr. Dianne N. Irving of Georgetown University addressed this very question with an essay describing the history of the field of bioethics and the goals of those in this relatively new field:
Starting in the ’60’s, important conferences took place which provided much of the materials, subject matter and debates later conceptualized in contemporary bioethics. The shift in theorists and in interests was dramatic. Of particular concern at these conferences were issues such as population control, eugenics, artificial reproduction, thought control, sterilization, cloning, artificial insemination, and sperm banks.
Don’t be fooled by the blatantly misleading title, if you hadn’t noticed this before. Obviously, the media for years hasn’t been up-front about what it means–bioethicists are routinely brought out when issues like Terri Schiavo, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, etc. are in focus. How many people think that because Dr. Joe Schmo The Bioethicist pronounces “this is correct,” that it is so? Hey, the ethics people say cloning is right and good, so what’s the problem?
The problem is, again, it’s more of a philosophy or course of study, as you can see in Dr. Irving’s essay. Are those in the media as ignorant of this as it seems? These people certainly aren’t presented with a disclaimer as to their basic bias that does not indicate “ethics” any more than presenting, for example, a Republican political scientist as an “ethicist.”
But more disturbing is the possibility that in a deep sense we have really come full circle. It was not just the “arrogance” of the early physicians and scientists that resulted in the systemic abuse of so many human subjects in research, but often the arrogance of physicians and scientists of an essentially eugenic mindset. Much as we have tried to “distance” ourselves from the eugenic atrocities of the Nazi era and similar more recent events, our official “silence” on eugenics in the academy and elsewhere has served only to blind us to its creeping acceptance in principle in the corridors of academe and government. Has “an Eugenic Age” indeed finally arrived, or is it still just the stuff of sci-fi novels? One only has to hear the many voices of many of the current leaders of the bioethics community around the world to ascertain an accurate answer. But that assumes that we know who these bioethics leaders are, and that we listen to what they are saying.
The “stranger” at the bedside may be more odious than we want or are prepared to acknowledge. Might that really account for Jonsen’s “silence” as he abruptly and prematurely halts his history of the “birth of bioethics”? Is bioethics today the golden brick path to the eugenics of the 21st century? Can we afford to remain distant and silent any longer, or do we wait until it is no longer even possible to raise the question, as has happened before? I ask you.
Obviously, I don’t have any answers on this. All I can say is “buyer beware.” Know who that person is who’s telling you what is “ethical” behavior or study, if you aren’t sure yourself of the answer to an issue. Too many people take what is said by too many “experts” as the final word, without seriously considering all the aspects or implications of what is said.
It’s shocking to me, at only age 38, how much of what was once considered unthinkable in my youth has now become accepted–if not preferred!–in society today. Consider this:
Under pressure from bioethicists, norms have been collapsing. Fifteen years ago, as author Wesley Smith writes in his 2002 book “The Culture of Death,” legally assisted suicide was unthinkable. So was harvesting the organs of terminally ill patients, which is done today and approved by bioethicists.
And now we also accept and, in fact, encourage starving our severely disabled to death because we “wouldn’t want to live like that.” How long before we comfortably say “I wouldn’t want to live like that” about cancer or AIDS patients (not long, I’m certain), the retarded, poor, mentally ill, depressed, illiterate, cleft-palated, orphaned, mildly-yet-inconvenienced disabled, blind, imprisoned, ugly, stupid, annoying, paranoid, deaf, Jewish, (I could go on, of course…) and starve all of them (or should I say US) to death too? Will it be in my lifetime or my daughter’s lifetime that we put a specific value on each human life and determine whether or not they are worth living and reproducing?
Dig into these sites and see for yourself:
The American Journal of Bioethics
National Institutes of Health Bioethics Resources
University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics (where Dr. Cranford is a Faculty Associate)
An alternative approach to bioethics:
American Bioethics Advisory Commission
Cranky says:
Beth,
Great post. Proving great minds think alike, John Leo writing in Townhall also examines the issue of bioethics and its implications at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20050328.shtml.
Up the road in Montgomery,
Cranky
jody says:
Good job, Beth. What humanity may think is “right” and “wrong” is not how I want my rights to live decided. Human life means so little to so many, it is frightening when life loses value in the eyes of those who have sworn to protect it.
basil's blog says:
Breakfast: 3/28/2005
Try one of these specials with your breakfast: Jay Tea celebrates an anniversary of blogging. Beth talks bio-ethics. Confederate Yankee is rethinking Terri’s case. Sortapundit offers a
Balance Sheet says:
Questioning Bioethics
Beth at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has a thought provoking post on the issue of bioethics and its advocates. And now we also accept and, in fact, encourage starving our severely disabled to death because we “wouldn’t want to…
JackLewis.net says:
Terri Schiavo OpEd/Blog roundup
OpEd Roundup: Vox Day: Schiavo solves Social Security Joseph Farrah: After Terri Barbara Simpson: Terri’s life trumps Bushes’ careers Terri…
The Sandmonkey says:
Beth,
my first time here-got the link through Kat in pijamas- and i gotta admit i am becoming an instant fan. I do not agree with you in regard of euthnasia (i am for it), but i agree with you that what’s happening to Terri is blatant murder.
I honestly believe that what this case is about is disability rights and not euthnasia. This case provides a precedent that equates someone who has braindamage that would prevent them from eating/drinking but otherwise are fine with someone who is practically dead in 10 seconds if you took them off their respirator or heartbeat regultor. I believe that what’s happening in this case can not be dubbed in any way “mercy killing” and will provide people in the future with an excuse for legal murder. This is why this case is so important.
I also think that people that support Michael Shiavo from the left are not fully aware of the details of the case, but rather making snap judgments based on headlines and the fact that they see the christian right and the republicans ( not to mention both Bush brothers) care so much about this, which naturally must make them wrong about it. Trust me on this one, every leftie i spoke to just didn’t know enough about this and when i explained it to them they switched sides to the “Save Terri” camp. Now if only i could reach that judge Greer guy. hmmmm
Anyway, keep up the good work.
Sam
(Pro-US, Pro-Israel, Pro-Bush Egyptian)
Alice says:
Beth - Thanks for the background. I am a medical student, and last year we had the obligatory ethics class - good to acknowledge the need for one, but at least at our school it was merely an opportunity for leftist indoctrination: euthanasia is good, allow/help everyone to die, Bush is evil, we need national healthcare, the government should run everything. After that class, I was willing to accept that maybe PVS patients should be “allowed” to die (although Terri isn’t even PVS!); but watching Terri’s case, I’m realizing that I was too quick to accept their reasoning. Even people in PVS are alive, and valuable. If we’re not careful, we truly are heading for a culture of death, where the elite and *healthy* decide who lives and dies.
Dave Munger says:
Ahem, a few quotes from my old “Democrats’ Dictionary” columns seem appropriate:
Ethics: 1.Opposite of morality (grounded in self-esteem rather than humility). 2. Unwritten law by which intellectuals govern their behavior. Ethics vary according to group allegiance, but can always be determined by graduates of ethics courses.
EXPERT: Someone with a degree in a subject that has to do with science, and that leads those who study it to take fashionable positions on political issues, but that provides little or no objective basis for these positions. Examples: Bio-ethicists, ecologists, psychologists.
Morality: Lowbrow populist substitute for ethics. Requires less education, but more religious training, often of an unsavory Judeo-Christian variety. (See Judgmental)
BIG DOG's WEBLOG says:
What Exactly Is the Correct Answer
There has been a great deal of discussion about Terri Schiavo. We know now that she will soon die. All along we have been told that she will not be in pain and will not suffer from starvation and dehydration. I wrote an earlier post where I describe…
christmasghost says:
I wonder what is next ,if ,in our new culture[I use that word oh, so loosely] Terri’s life can be snuffed out on the hearsay of her less-than-loving husband?
Soylent Green in the cafeteria?
MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » Lazy says:
[...] l Moonbat
Sign the petitions
* Mobile GOP Meetup Group *
Lazy BioETHICS? :: sigh :: Good thing this isn’t allowed here! Yet [...]
NIF says:
Captain Emeritus of Lolly-Gaggers
Today’s dose of NIF - daily News, Interesting & Funny … pray for Terri!
MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » Bigotry and the Murder of Terri Schiavo says:
[...] le GOP Meetup Group *
Bigotry and the Murder of Terri Schiavo Lazy BioETHICS? :: sigh :: Good thing this isn’t allowed here! Yet [...]
MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » Unethical “bioethics” says:
[...] baaaack…ranting and slaying liberals Bigotry and the Murder of Terri Schiavo Lazy BioETHICS? :: sigh :: Good thing this isn’t allowed here! Yet [...]
MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » Misery and the miserable says:
[...] ght now, and reposting one in its entirety. Bigotry Unethical “bioethics” BioETHICS? Throughout the virtual reams of opinion and testimony [...]
Thomas says:
Guess what, asshole, you don’t have a right to come here and call anyone a moron just because you disagree with my/our point(s) of view. Besides, 1) you don’t know me or anyone else here to be able to ASSume the stupid shi’ite you do ASSume, and 2) basically, you’re obviously brainwashed. Go fuck off.
–The Management™
Thomas says:
Read your own comment. Reflect on what in you it expresses. Know thyself.
[HA! Duh, Thomas...it's ok for you to come here and say what you said, but not me, huh! GET IT? Do unto others, and all that.
And by the way, you're nothing to me so far but a waste of my time. Three strikes and you're out.]
diddle says:
hey wat that thomas guy say, are you censoring the blog