TrackBack and Comment API URL

http://www.bunnyworld.net/admin/incoming.asp?id=1153476908001

Just a hypothetical
What if, due to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, an orphanage was destroyed? Say there were some infants that survived the storm but were found in comas. They were taken to the hospital and were stable but remained in comas. Some of them were adopted by couples hopeful that they would come out of the coma.

Of the rest, the hospital decided they didn't have the resources to keep them alive so they decided to terminate their life support and bury the bodies. But a research group wanted to instead experiment on them first.

So the questions are: Is that ethical? Would it be ethical to experiment after they died but before burying them?

It's not an exact parallel, of course, and you may say that an embryo is not the same as an infant. My point (finally) is that Bush, however, does believe they are the same. So I don't think his reasoning is internally corrupt as I think you're suggesting. The decision flows naturally from an internal conviction that they are both life and deserve protection and respect.
Kevin
via BlogWorks :: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:17:00 GMT :: Permalink

Well, I'd think it'd be just as ethical to have research on adults. This is commonly dine with blind studies, where a portion of the group gets no treatment, and another portion gets treatment with a medicine that may cause unknown or horrible side effects. Is it ethicat to withold treatment from a group just for the sake of a control? There are experimental treatments going on all the time, and people die while under said care all the time. So I don't see a problem testing on babies. Of course I think there are some tests that I think are unethical, but then I think testing on lab rats is unethical in many cases as well.
Cassondra
via BlogWorks :: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:36:38 GMT :: Permalink

I don't think that's quite a fair comparison. Studies on adults are done with the full consent and agreement of those being studied. Plus they're administered under strict governmental oversight (and usually AMA or APA guidelines) and are designed to improve quality of life.

Rats are another issue, and that gets into the whole "soul" mess...

Embryos can't give consent, have no rights (as they're not "life"), and the experiments usually result in the embryo's death.
Kevin
via BlogWorks :: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:47:25 GMT :: Permalink

There would still be strict governmental oversight, it's not like the government is going to allow experimentation willy-nilly in ANY case. In the case of minors undergoing experimental treatments, it's the parent or garudian who makes medical decisions. In this case the embryos (or babies in your scenario) are wards of the state. And in either case, with termination of life support or distruction of the embryos, death would be the end result. I think it would be the ethical choice to make experimental treatment as painless as possible. This is easier in the case of the embryo because it lacks a central nervious system. Either way, is the distruction of the embryo that is currently occurring in 98% of cases any more a violation of its rights than experimentation would be? Pro-lifers would say so, and would incist that embryos be stored in their frozen stat indefinately. That's just not feasable.
Cassondra
via BlogWorks :: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:09:49 GMT :: Permalink

Dang, I can't believe I'm even fighting this battle considering how much more conservative I am than my husband.
Cassondra
via BlogWorks :: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:14:23 GMT :: Permalink

The entire stem cell discussion boils down to whether you believe an embryo is a life or not, just like abortion. If it is not, then the entire debate is purely a moral issue, and the government has no right to legislate on morality alone. To be perfectly honest, I don't know at what point life begins, and I don't believe anyone else on this world does. As a result, I don't believe that the government should base its decisions solely on their personal opinion about when life is actually created. Government and religious beliefs should remain separate.

Everyone has a different opinion on that issue, and I respect that. However, the thing that really bothers me about this particular issue is that Bush has based his entire defense for his veto on not wanting to "destroy life", when the embryos are going to be destroyed either way. If you believe that these embryos are lives and have the same rights as everyone else in this country, then 98% of them are already being murdered. This would be no different, except that at least this way some good could come of their destruction.
thebunny
via BlogWorks :: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:38:42 GMT :: Permalink

See, the problem is that experimentation on someone that can't consent to it is not a morally-neutral thing, which is why I think you'd feel differently if it wasn't an embryo.

Not to invoke Godwin's Law, but by your logic wouldn't that mean that so long as the Nazis were going to murder Jewish prisoners that it was a morally-neutral thing to experiment on them first?

And if unwanted experimentation is not a morally-neutral thing(*) then it's not simply a decision over whether they'd "go to waste" or not, but whether the experimentation itself is unethical or not.

(*) See AMA Code of Medical Ethics section E-2.07 on Clinical Investigation: "No person may be used as a subject in clinical investigation against his or her will."
Kevin
via BlogWorks :: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:05:48 GMT :: Permalink

Ah, but see the Nazi's were experimenting on otherwise healthy (well frostbitten and malnourished) people not with the intention of curing some malidy, and without any desire to minimise pain and suffering, indeed that was generally the goal. The infants in your first scenario were comatose so experimentation would have the potential to find the cause of the coma and heal not only that child but the other comatose children. And again, as is the case with any minor, the parents or gardians get to make the decision on whether to be a part of a clinical study. In the case of the embryos I think the real issue is defining their gaurdian(s). I think a valid case can be made for either the state or the biological donors. In the case of the state, well the state is going to oversee teh research anyway. If it is the biological donors then I see no reason not to allow them to make the decision whether they want their genetic material to be used for medical research, available for adoption, both, or neither.
Cassondra
via BlogWorks :: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 02:15:49 GMT :: Permalink