The case of Barbie is pressing and must be dealt with swiftly and with no pause for error or lack of judgement. It brings up many different issues that have been brought to the hospital with many different ethical stances on how to proceed. As deliberators we must take into account all sides of this situation to most effectively treat Barbie in a way that is morally permissible; it must also be able to stand as a valid constitute for future protocol. There are three options for treatment, all having different magnitudes of residual affects which the hospital will have to stand by in similar cases.
Barbie is in need of a new liver to alleviate her from the impending affects of liver failure. The first option for liver transplant is unorthodox which was further brought to light in a letter from the executive director of an animal cruelty organization; his concern being the life of the healthy pig and its sacrifice for temporary ailment relief. The hospital needs to inform this director of the huge difference in inherent value of the two lives at stake. The death of the pig should not go un-heeded because all life should be valued thus deserving some respect; but, as with all animals, we have dominion over them so time after time there will be sufficient reasons to warrant the sacrifice for the greater good of society. This director is short sighted, if killing a healthy pig for bacon is permissible it is surely alright killing one to save a human life, all be it, only a short solution to the problem. The potential to save a human life out weighs the life of this pig, one should respond to this vexing letter with that message and our assurance of the capability to determine whether or not it is the right option. The option of a pig to infant liver transplant brings up more ethical issues outside those addressed and these must be considered before this becomes a viable treatment.
There is much speculation around the matter of taking organs from animals due to the sheer difference in genetic structure of the species. This field of practice goes under constant fire for the lack of research and evidence that is needed to support it, especially in a life or death situation. The “Fowler case” sets an example for what ethical qualms to consider; since there was no evidence to show the likely hood of success, going through with the surgery acts the same as not treating the patient at all, or even worse, hurting the family with unrealistic hope and grief. The transplant worked, until hours before the human liver was ready, ending with a devastated family and general public; however we must take into account that it did, almost, work. A lot of knowledge can be gained from experimental procedures, but at what cost?
Learning from the past is critical in medical practice alike all other fields but in medicine the risks can amount to life or death and there is no room to make those mistakes. Experimental procedures must take place if man is to progress but it must be done so ethically with all parties considered; in deadly circumstances there must be measurable probability of success and no other realistic options. Gaining Knowledge from experimental procedures will never justify the means in any case; no matter how promising or trivial it is their must always be a patient with their best interests in mind. Second to the patients health all else can be considered, one of which being, for the sake of science. If the patient dies as a result of an experiment the death is not justified it’s just some value being taken, regardless of what did justify it or if it was justified at all. To justify an experimental practice much more must be considered besides the benefit for others it may bring later, like tampering with the sanctity of human life.
The hospital must respond to a letter from the Executive Director of the Society for the Prevention of Human Cloning regarding outrage on our considering embryonic stem cells to create an alternative liver. This stance stems from the idea that embryos deserve the same inherent rights that sentient humans have and then should not be harvested or created to do so. In our case the embryo is readily available, leaving aside the harm of cloning or educing an embryo just for the sake of harvesting. There is a large distinction between creating an embryo for its stem cells and having a viable one at hand and that should be made clear. There is also the idea, of a slippery slope, that is the underlying concern; if we start to use embryos in experimental research it opens a door that leads to more research and eventually creating embryos to supply it, if not just an addition to the average amount collected for fertility treatment. This is a big issue but if the hospital were to continue, lines could be drawn and regulated alike everything else. If progress was always stifled by fear or abuse the world would be with out prescription drugs and the same could be said in a future cured by stem cells. The hospital must insure this director that stem cells remain a viable option and it would only be pursued with avid care. At the heart of this topic is the sanctity of human life and ethics surrounding how that life is birthed.
If the Barbie’s parents had decided to buy a human egg after preimplantation genetic diagnostics occurred we could center down on the issue of manipulating embryos for the sake of patients. Some question that it undermines the natural order of life, or gods divine hand, but more critically a system that generates eggs for stem cells on demand. If the hospital where to use a purchased egg it would then stand to act as a guideline for the next procedure that was similar, to be treated the same way. The PGD process would also be necessary to assure no further harm would come to the patient at hand. All parties must be thought about if this system is to run, all parties must benefit including the egg donor and security that the physicians wont be negatively impacted. There is a slope with embryo screening, it opens the door for to genetic engineering; if man can dispose of embryos with genetic diseases then why not just take away the disease alone. Once that starts why not modify for other things, so on, so forth; but a line can be drawn, there can be limits set to the depth at which things man can manipulate. There is always the issue of limits being broken, if the standard limits are extended, those who break the limits will be doing something all to terrible, in the case of genetic engineering especially. If the hospital used this option it would still need to face the more critical issue of the embryos actually being sacrificed to use its stem cells, which ties with the act of abortion for many different reasons.
The ethical issues surrounding abortion are whether or not embryonic life, while it has no conscious, sentient, capabilities has the inherent right not to be extorted for any purpose. An embryo is human but then when does a human have worth, an argument is conception; conception is a nice solid line to set, it is right when the individual genetically coded entity is first collected. If this ethical stance is correct it undermines the entirety of some infertility treatments and In Vitro Fertilization all together because the surplus of embryos created by them. A surplus of embryos is an issue here because it acts the same as a large foster home being created and endorsed which is held as a growing negative attribute actively against moral. On the other side of this stance is the idea that conscious sentient life has more worth then never conscious non-sentient, the same that humans have more worth then other species, because the embryo is not truly living if it can not think or feel; it lives in the way a cell does but it also carries the potential for life, but sperm has the same attributes and it would be ludicrous to hold it at worth. It should not be regarded as human until it has the conscious feature that allows any recognition at all, an embryo also cant feel any pain making it a humane death all the same. The line of worth has simply been shifted toward the fetus stage because previous and because the many implications the first ethical stance brings. If embryos had the same worth as humans not only IVF and infertility treatment would be inhumane; women suffering from infertility who try to have a child naturally, knowing a high rate of fertilized eggs aren't making it to the uterus, would also have to come under moral fire. In the anti abortion theory natural birth in fact does more harm to embryos in these cases causing it to fall in on itself; leaving the embryo to fall short of high stature, even by natures protocol. If embryos are worth less then humans it then holds that they can be sacrificed for the life of a human but this doesn’t fully answer the question of whether or not such an experimental procedure is appropriate for the case at hand.
If Barbie doesn’t receive treatment she will die, medical principles back the doctors in doing the procedure that they believe will work best for the health and dignity of the patient. It is principally paramount to care for the patient even if the only option is experimental because these physicians are professionals and are sworn to helping patients. This decision would act as an improvement for the community and a betterment of health by opening a door for many more patients to benefit from stem cells. There is also the family to keep in mind who will stop at nothing to have a kid and having to deal with the trauma of repeated death. It would be a travesty to not attempt something from their perspective and their opinions are important. The doctors are obligated to attempt something for the sake of Barbie because it is in her best interest, however the decision does not remain in their hands; Barbies parents must be the final deciders, the options must be stated clearly to them, as well as the risks that come with it.
Risks are detrimental in this deliberation process and the risks the final decision poses for the entire community are vast. The first option has blatant risk for the baby because the pig liver cells will be so different and it is unlikely that it will be sustainable for any lengthy measure of time. The baby would need a new transplant liver immediately or risk death, also a significant risk then there for the parents. The risk to society is a growing research in temporary organ replacements from animals that could become problematic. The second experimental procedure shows a lot more promise of working for the parents and baby but there is still risk associated with the doctor. In both cases the physicians must take into account the risk criticism and the dignity of the hospital as a whole, legally they should be alright. The risk to society in the second is far more significant in then the first, opening a path to more stem cell research that remains extremely controversial into todays public. The most rational fears come from the risk of what stem cell research will lead to, biogenetic engineering, and a world susceptible to engineered super viruses. This risks can be avoided by setting rules and punishments as society does for anything; rules, regulation, and innovation are the keys to a smooth running community but the people behind these keys will always go under extreme examination.
To lead innovation by successfully undergoing such an experimental procedure will bring the eye of the public on all parties. The hospital and physician’s self-interest in the matter should be to promote the significance of Barbie and her family’s self-interest and how much the success means to them. This will be judged for, means’ and ends’, and it should be emphasized how monumental the ends are before all else. The ends’ for the patient are the center stone of what stem cell research can bring to people in need all over the world and weighing that above all is critical. The self-interest of the physicians is the betterment of the community and they will be judged for the means’ that brought this betterment to be. To succeed would promote stem cell research all together and this should go subtly noticed by all, what the hospital doesn’t want is activist up in arms about them overly glorifying the use of embryonic cells. The hospital should speak to the public gingerly and take pause to mention the severe restraints on time and options on the case. Due to this time restraint a decision must be determined and followed swiftly, since there is no assured successful option the physicians should suggest the treatment that is most likely to work.
No comments:
Post a Comment