8/12/2019 Devil in the Detail
1/2
Devil in the Detail
The idea of bioethics has probably circulated in loose or vague
forms ever since the
dawn of life sciences. Notably, at that time the question of
ethics was not necessarily
proposed by academics. During the medieval ages and even the
Enlightenment,
religion still held a monopoly upon generally accepted truths
and the methods ofattaining them. I am especially referring to the
Believe and do not doubt line of
thought, which inevitably conflicted with empirical studies upon
different forms of life.
Some would even go well beyond the comfortable boundaries set by
the church. To
further his research in anatomy, Leonardo da Vinci would resort
to grave robbing, an
unspeakable act at that time.
Nowadays one can easily notice that this is no longer the case,
bodies are available
for study and such practices have become quite common and no
longer treated with
such revulsion. The point I am trying to make is that views do
change over time.
Whenever the media covers topics related to bioethics, they will
mostly refer to cases
to which people can easily relate to, ranging from themes such
as abortion,
euthanasia, end-life treatment and life support, organ donor
waiting list priorities,
embryo adoption, stem cell research, health care deficit in
third-world countries or
cloning. It is easy to relate to the above because they all
directly cover human-
related issues. It is also not uncommon that people will also
have strong differing and
often emotionally charged opinions, even if there is plenty of
gray area in a particular
matter, leading to a polemic stalemate. In my mind it is
impossible to objectively
legislate such matters without overlooking or being unable to
integrate small yet vital
details.
On another note, it seems quite strange that the general public
does not voice almost
any opinion regarding less noticeable or impacting research that
essentially poses just
as many ethical problems as issues directly related to humans.
Scientists have been
tinkering with a variety of model organisms for decades now,
modifying their genetic
code, switching genes on and off, essentially playing god. In my
opinion it does
seems a bit hypocritical of the public to only acknowledge
issues that directly impact
humanity.
Of course, there are those that consider tampering with natural
life processes not to
be a boundary, and it is often the case that most breakthroughs
occur due to such
research. Most often the masses will understand that the
benefits are well worth the
sacrifice and the general opinion will shift towards a more
relaxed, rational and less
emotionally charged state. For instance, IVF treatments or
embryo adoptions are
nowadays viewed with a more positive attitude, providing
infertile couples with a
solution otherwise unavailable.
To sum up, I believe that if progress is to be achieved in life
sciences, one is expected
to make certain sacrifices in their personal beliefs, since
there is yet no way to
accept a binary truth system for such morally complex
situations.
