 |
| David Korn |
In the book’s Afterword, Skloot quotes
David Korn, vice provost for research at Harvard University, as saying that “people are morally obligated to allow their bits and pieces to be used to advance knowledge to help others. Since everybody benefits, everybody can accept the small risks of having their tissue scraps used in research” (321). Do you agree with Korn that while “consent feels nice,” the moral obligation to advance knowledge to help others is more important?
 |
| Lori B. Andrews |
Or do you agree with
Lori Andrews, who counters that “Science is not the highest value in society” and that it is more important to respect the rights of an individual to determine for themselves how their “bits and pieces” may be used—both when they are living and dead?
I agree with Lori Andrews. Korn says, "Since everybody benefit[s]". Who is to say everybody benefits? If my cells go to abortion research I am not benefiting and the unborn child is not benefiting. The only people are the likely uncapable mother and the doctor getting paid to do the abortion. The same with male enhancement research, I can assure you that does not benefit everybody!
ReplyDeleteMorgan Hicks
Ah, but it might--you never know. Abortion research studies a developing fetus, and the working uterus around it. That could help: premature babies, mothers who have miscarried, women with polycystic ovarian syndrome, at-risk children (while still in the womb, some babies can suffer life-threatening complications), etc. 'Male enhancement' research studies blood flow through, and concentration in, tissues, plus hormones. And that could help people with circulatory problems; weak or enlarged hearts; stroke victims or patients at risk of a stroke, at risk of a blood clot, or heart attack, and more. Even if the research is distasteful, the way biology works, the possibilities are endless!
DeleteWhile I agree with Andrews that science is not the highest value in society, and that it is important that the rights of an individual are respected, I agree with Korn more. For example, if I had a tumor like Henrietta, and a doctor told me that with my cells, I could save millions of lives, I would donate them in a heartbeat. It would be selfish not to. Morally, I would be obligated to, and honestly, I would rather save millions of lives than have a million dollars. Now, if a doctor told me to donate my arm, I would promptly refuse, but if it was something as small as a tissue sample I'd be all for it. Sure, it might not benefit everyone, but if your cells could save lives from lets say cancer, you'd be benefiting a large percent of people.
ReplyDeleteTaryn Jack
I would have to agree with Korn. The reasons to not donate a simple tissue seem belittled by the fact that it could make the smallest difference. Even if it made controversial procedures possible to perform in a hospital, I believe that it is still worth while. Abortions are a nasty subject to discuss, but whether abortions were possible through safe means or not I believe they would still be performed. I do not believe it is someones own decision to decide which lives they would prefer to benefit, just like I believe everyone should feel morally inclined to help any benefit who could.
ReplyDeleteI think where we can do good, we are moraly obliged to do that good. It's just like the old Spiderman theme. So having said that, I agree with Korn.
ReplyDeleteI agree most with Andrews. Research in science has been, in some cases, taken to extremes that surpass the interest of what is best for man-kind and lean more toward what is best for making profits. The advancement of the field in these cases is defiantly not the most important issue in society in my opinion. Though, Korn poses a compelling argument and I think that we as humans do have the responsibility to do what we can to help others, it is his lack of respect for consent and the rights one should have to his or her own biological material that makes me disinclined to agree with his view as a whole.
ReplyDeleteAnna Talkington
How many people actually read the entirety of all the paperwork and forms we feel out at a Doctor's office? I read through most of it, but I'm definitely not taking it line by line, word by word, especially when someone is talking to me about it. Maybe that is just a fault that I have but how easy would it be for the terms of consent needed for any amount of medical research be put in there? The people who really worry about where parts of their body go could opt out of the research and the ones like me who skim through everything could continue donating away. I believe that people have a right to know if there body is being used for research however; I believe that sometimes we do have to take one for the team.
ReplyDeleteCaleb Savage
I agree with Andrews. Science is important, but it is not the most important thing within our society. Consent should always be given. Korn is not necessarily true. Everyone will not benefit from it. Many people might, but not everyone. Especially since, as Anna stated, it quickly becomes more about making profit than making a difference in the lives of people.
ReplyDeleteMost people would willingly donate any way, if they were informed. If they are 'morally obligated' the majority of individuals would do it just to help their fellow man. In which case, the choice should be theirs to make.
In my personal opinion, I believe that it should the individual's decision as to what happens to their body after they pass away. Therefore, I would definitely agree with Lori Andrews. I also take into account the feelings of the family who lost their loved one. For instance, if the person had never stated whether he or she wants his or her body to be donated for scientific research or medical research, the family may not want for anyone to mess with his or her body. I do see the good in people donating their bodies to research, but I strongly feel that if they did not wish that for themselves then their preference should not be violated. I agree with Sarah in saying that science is not the most important thing within our society. I am a very emotional person and I take into consideration the feelings of the people who lost someone close to them. For those who do not give permission for science to have their bodies, I think it gives their family a sense of closure to bury or cremate them (or whatever the loved one's preference was).
ReplyDeleteKelsey
Jackson
DeleteCan you think of another scenario in which the rights of the individual have to be weighed against the potential benefit to society at large? Do you find that you always come down on the same side on such issues?
ReplyDeleteI think a good example would be the new "Open Carry" policy in Oklahoma. Gun rights have always been a frequently debated topic, especially here in Oklahoma. The opposition to this policy would argue that open carry is dangerous. People can't be trusted to carry weapons publicly and use them responsibly. People that agree with the policy think an individual has the rights to carry a weapon to defend them (and potentially other people around them). I think your opinion can vary based on the details of separate issues. You don't always have to take one side.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Parham
Do you find yourself taking different sides on the indivdiual freedom/social benefit debate depending on the issue, Matthew?
ReplyDelete