Http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e9/Thumb_Daniel_Callahan.jpg/220px-Thumb_Daniel_Callahan.jpg.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e9/Thumb_Daniel_Callahan.jpg/220px-Thumb_Daniel_Callahan.jpg

Intro to Bioethics

Emerged in 50’s-60’s

Modern detail due to new technology advances (e.g. the pill, abortion, dialysis, transplants) At same time as awareness of dangers of “pure progress” (e.g.

Silent Spring) Also civil rights Time of increased individualism and choices Affirmative right to health (not just absence of disease) Reframing of who has rights

But still all about the same old questions Life and death Pain and suffering Duty to others

Other Historical Context

Eugenics Eugenics movement big in US

Anti-miscegenation laws Margaret Sanger Forced sterilizations of the “unfit”

Also big with Nazis…

Experiments on prisoners and disabled

Colonialism

Other Historical Context: Tuskegee Experiment

Ran from 1932-1972~400 poor, rural African-American men with

syphilis (200 w/o)Offered free medical careNot told about or treated for syphilisPenicillin available in 1940, standard by 1947Wanted to see progress of disease

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

The field…

Ethics meets life sciences (medicine)An academic field of its ownProvides cultural perspectiveAffects law, policy, media, culture, other

disciplinesStruggles to be taken seriously…. But is

contributing

Bioethics gets at….

Tension between individual and private Large scale policy/legislation

Tries to answer questions about what we should do Applied at different levels

Historically

Idea that science/medicine = fact/ truth/ solid/ authoritative ethics = soft/ relativistic/ personal/ idiosyncratic And that these are separate

Then a good medical decision = a good moral decision

Goal of bioethics is to blur that line Develop tools/methods to deal with problems Different from “medical ethics”

Questions

How can I be moral and act morally to others?

What do I base this on? Virtue v. duty? Principles? Rights? (deontology) Consequences (utilitarianism) Whose freedom/choice gets prioritized Top-down v. bottom-up

Feminist Bioethics

http://www.upne.com/author_mugs/steinbergdavid_mug.jpg

A little more on Bioethics

Hard to define but about values and promoting them About right and wrong

Says that fact that we don’t know how to deal with conflict is evidence that Bioethics is not as solid as science

But decisions have to be made and we need to know how to deal with them

About a common morality

Different Philosophies

Utilitarianism – consequences

Deontologism – logically derived rules from principles

Principalism – morality based on autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice

http://www.lifesitenews.com/images/sized/images/news/peter-singer-400x276.jpg

Animals?

Non-human animal ethics is based on assertion that animals feel pain and are conscious General agreement (science + experience)

Therefore a general assumption that procedures that hurt people also hurt animals

Context and History

Lots of animals used in experimental work >22 million/year as of 1986 Mice, rats, cats, dogs, rabbits, primates, pigs….

Toxicity testing Until late 80’s, LD50 was standard for everything Also Draize eye test consumer backlash

Military Relatively undocumented (and unregulated) Monkey radiation

Psych research Big exposés a Penn about monkey studies

Dissection Out of favor, more alternatives

Guidelines

Most countries have some protectionCIOMSMost institutions have committees/codes

In defense of….

Leads to breakthroughsAdvances knowledge and disease curesMostly harmless studiesLots for vet purposes Justifications:

Benefit to humans > harm to animals Knowledge > harm

So….

If we believe (as we do now) that this doesn’t justify harm to non-consenting adults, we have to establish a different moral status of humans and non-human animals.

Some positions….

Biblical We have domain (but we are also the shepherds)

Animals don’t have rights Are not moral (rational) agents capable of autonomous

action Therefore we only have moral obligation to those who

can reciprocateContract based on species membership

Utilitarianism Applied

Benefit to human life span is worth it Bypass graft example

Genuine utilitarianism looks at all pain Need a human-centric flavor

Inconsistent to not use for lab work but to use for food?

The range of anti’s

Abolitionists Ends don’t justify means Pain/death of an innocent is wrong Hard for many to be absolute if outcome is important

enoughReformers

Ok if we change practices and benefit good enough Promote alternate methods The 3 R’s

Reduction Refinement Replacement

Moral Status

We don’t draw ethical boundary at speciesNot just about abilitySpeciesism analogous to racism

Intelligence argument is a slippery slopeNot claiming all interests are equal, but all

should be consideredNeed to examine assumption that restricting

animal research impedes science

CIOMS