Calling Dr. Mengele, Calling Dr. Mengele
| January 5, 2010 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
Alasdair Cochrane works at an organization called the Centre for the Study of Human Rights in the UK. The journal Bioethics has just published Cochrane’s article “Undignified Bioethics” (subscription required), in which he argues that the concept of inherent human dignity should be rejected. Cochrane correctly notes that treating all humans as though they possess inherent dignity merely by virtue of the fact that they are human gets in the way of the really nifty medical experiments we could perform on the defenseless among us if we were to jettison that notion:
This conception of dignity as inherent moral worth certainly seems coherent enough as an idea. Indeed, we can also see why this conception of dignity is employed in certain debates around bioethics. For if all individual human beings possess dignity, then they should not be viewed simply as resources that we can treat however we please. To take an example then, it may be that we could achieve rapid and significant progress in medical science if we were to conduct wide-ranging medical experiments on groups of human beings. However, because human beings have dignity, so it is argued, this means that they possess a particular quality that grounds certain moral obligations and rights. These obligations and rights restrict what we may permissibly do to them. As such, inflicting great harms on individual humans, as would be inflicted in medical experiments, is impermissible on the grounds that human individuals possess dignity. The dignity of individual human beings prevents us from doing certain acts to them, even if those acts would lead to great social benefits.
Therefore, we need to “argue” over which of us humans are exempt from medical experimentation and which of us are fair game for the Mengele wannabes:
Obviously, given controversies over abortion, stem cell research, genetic interventions, animal experimentation, euthanasia and so on, bioethics does need to engage in debates over which entities possess moral worth and why. But these are best conducted by using the notion of ‘moral status’ and arguing over the characteristics that warrant possession of it. Simply stipulating that all and only human beings possess this inherent moral worth because they have dignity is arbitrary and unhelpful. . . . I urge for an undignified bioethics.
This is where materialism inevitably leads. Cochrane believes that human beings are purely material – nothing but matter in motion. Given that premise, how can one argue with his logic? Why should we not treat objects like, well, objects. In a materialist world “justice” is a meaningless word, and the strong exploit the weak for their own ends.
I wonder if Cochrane would stick to his position if we conducted the “argument” he urges upon us and decide that foppish Brit materialists fall in the “exploit at will” category?
47 Responses to Calling Dr. Mengele, Calling Dr. Mengele
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m not saying Cochrane is advocating for that, I’m saying it’s not too big a leap to go from what he’s stated in his article to such a scenario that I described.
I link human dignity to ethics, but I’m no expert on the subject. If you see a connection between the two, then my potential scenario seems to fit. If you don’t see the connection between dignity and ethics, then perhaps my scenario doesn’t fit.
Besides, I was just clarifying my position for Ms. O’Leary, and suggesting that the “go for it” attitude in reference to Phase I trials is perhaps a bit flippant in the light of the data I’ve seen.
This concept of “undignified bioethics” would seem to contraindicate two portions of what I learned as the ‘Georgetown mantra’ (philosophical principles governing bioethics): beneficence and nonmaleficence. The fact that it also violates a patient’s autonomy is another mark against it.
shackleman at 32: Just a note or two: The difficulty is that there can be a huge divide between a 38 year old man and an 83 year old woman, in terms of what they might reasonably be expected to do.
This issue actually came up here in Canada when the government was considering delisting some drugs, due to higher risk of strokes.
Well, the really old ladies said – you expected this, of course – so what? The really old ladies might have a stroke anyway. Meanwhile, they had less pain from various illnesses.
This is the sort of problem that all senior care faces – the need to balance life quality with health risks.
Denyse,
You have probably gone oft to bed like a sensible person but have been off debating ID with Catholics and one has made some rather extraordinary claims. It is on the Joe Carter blog at First Things. Here is the link to my last comment. If you then work your way up you will see my other comments as well as a couple others but especially someone named R. Hampton. For all I know he could be a priest.
http://www.firstthings.com/blo.....mment-6814
I would be interested in your take on this. Is the Church going to go medieval and proclaim Darwinian evolution as dogma? Will ask StephenB the same.
Well, I for one can argue with his logic– and so should you: Following your argument, even the term ‘ethics’ or ‘bioethics’ should be completely meaningless to a materialist. And why would he ‘urge’ anything either? It’s all just matter in motion.
By the way, for everybody who does not have access to the full text, here is the conclusion of the paper. It may clarify to folks who don’t have access to the text the argument that Cochrane is making.
hrum0815 writes: “Following your argument, even the term ‘ethics’ or ‘bioethics’ should be completely meaningless to a materialist. And why would he ‘urge’ anything either? It’s all just matter in motion.”
In a sense, words like “ethics” and “bioethics” are meaningless to materialists, as honest materialists like Will Provine will readily admit.
And yet, virtually every materialist lives as if words like “ethics”, “morality”, “justice” and “dignity” actually do have a meaning.
There is an English Common Law doctrine of “necessity” – one may do things to save one’s life or the lives of others which might not otherwise be prudent or even lawful acts.
The doctrine assumes that human life is valuable, at least to the persons who have it. Thus, a security guard might risk her life to shoot someone who was planning to kill a crowd of people at a public gathering – and she could say later in her own defense, hey, I was only doing my job. Most juries here would buy that.
One problem for the person who is asked to be a “power of attorney” for an ill friend or relative is to distinguish between treatments that might be worth paying for, even if risky (doctrine of necessity) and … other promoted offers.
Hrun0815 writes “And yet, virtually every materialist lives as if words like “ethics”, “morality”, “justice” and “dignity” actually do have a meaning.”
Of course they do. An objective transcendent moral standard exists, and materialists largely live by that standard even as they deny it. It’s like the Hindu who denies that objective reality exists but still looks both ways before he crosses the street. The Hindu does not want to get run over by an objective bus, and the materialist is utterly certain in his heart that objective morality exists, his denials notwithstanding. So what is your point?
I guess my point is that it seems ridiculous that you engage in the writing of any materialist that uses such words (ethics, moral, justice, dignity, love, hate, desire, …).
Following your logic, they are so deeply inconsistent that everything they write is essentially complete gibberish.
For example, you seem to suggest that Cochrane wants ‘“argue” over which of us humans are exempt from medical experimentation and which of us are fair game for the Mengele wannabes’– presumable to perform experimentation that would ‘would lead to great social benefits’. But that also is complete nonsense for a materialist. Why would a ‘matter in motion’ care about ‘great social benefits’?
Barb, leaving all this confusion about the inconsistency of materialists aside, why do you think a term like ‘dignity’ is needed to describe bioethics governed by ‘beneficence and nonmaleficence’?
There is no need for “dignity” in the discussion of bioethics.
One has to wonder why there is a need for “ethics” in the discussion of bioethics.
O’Leary:”But it is not always so simple. For many studies, it would be no use enrolling if you don’t have the problem. ”
Phase I studies are the overwhelming majority of them anyway) conducted to determine not only how hte drug ‘treats’ the body but also how the body ‘treats’ the drug. In short Phase I trials are used to determine the toxicokinetics (bioavailability, absorption parameters,rate of excretion, and half-life) as well as the toxicodynamics (those parameters associated with metabolism, route of excretion) to name but a few of the types of data gathered in a Phase I clinical trial.
Phase I trials are not concerned with efficacy but with safety and determining dosing regimes. Enrolling unhealthy people in a Phase I trial would be a major shoot-in-the-foot confounding factor in trying to determine the above mentioned parameters. It would be very much a worthwhile enterprise to enroll disease-free people in Phase I trials. You get the best and most accurate data available gathered to answer the questons that a Phase I clinical trial asks.
Phase II clinical trials are concerned with both safety and efficacy on a smaller scale that will occur in a Phase III clinical trial.
The question is should a healthy person no longer be permitted to make a decision to participate in a risky behavior without losing his ability to make decisions, i.e., put all his/her stuff into a trust.
O’Leary:”Shouldn’t the researchers at least insist that some medical personnel agree that I have arthritis before I am enrolled? ”
For the overwhelming majority of Phase I clinical trials the answer would be, No. For example a patient having arthritis could possibly have a history of taking any number of medications to treat their arthritis. It is well known that induction of metabolic enzymes occurs with many drugs. If you re trying to determine dosing, route of excretion, metabolic rate, metabolite formation, half-life, ect. all of yoru data would be skewed due the effect of enzyme induction. Using the healthies human available is very much desired in Phase I trials.
So you and Cochrane agree. Does that mean you also support Mengele-style experiments? And if not, why not?
I failed to see this on the first reading. Are you sure about this? This does not seem to really jive with the thoughts voiced by many materialists. Why would they all be lying or deluded? Is there any behavior that makes you believe they secretly believe in an objective morality?