The first ten years of the 2000s (please, no arguments over whether the first decade really ends this year) brought bioethics front and center into national and international prominence as never before. Since this is the time for creating “top ten lists,” I pondered the matter over my eggnog over the holidays and compiled for NRO, the ten most important stories in bioethics of the last decade (in descending order), with commentary. From my piece, “Technological Morality:”
10: The ascendance of an anti-human environmentalism...Radical environmentalism appears to have morphed into anti-humanism, the result of which could be a new impetus for eugenics and radical population control.
9. The growth of biological colonialism. Desperate and destitute people are increasingly being exploited for their body parts and functions…
8. The increase in American pro-life attitudes. In the last decade, polling showed a dramatic increase in the number of people who identify themselves as pro-life…If this trend continues, it could eventually shake the Roe regimen off its foundation.
7. The struggle over Obamacare. The political brouhaha over Obamacare was the bioethics story of 2009, not only in the U.S. but throughout much of the developed world…The debate will not end with the passage or failure of a bill, and health-care reform will likely be one of the most important stories of the coming decade.
6. Legalization of assisted suicide in Washington...[T]he Washington victory boosted the morale of assisted-suicide activists, who promise to wage an energetic legalization campaign in the coming decade.
5: The success of adult-stem-cell research...For example, in early human trials, adult stem cells have helped diabetics get off insulin, restored sensation to paralyzed people with spinal-cord injuries, helped heal unhealthy hearts, and provided hope to patients with autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis. These and other amazing advances in adult-stem-cell research provided one of the few pieces of truly good news in a sour decade.
4. “Suicide tourism” in Switzerland. Over the last decade, Switzerland became Jack Kevorkian as a country, its suicide clinics catering to an increasingly international clientele…Alas, as was the case with Kevorkian in the 1990s, audacity was rewarded. In the face of a wave of high-profile suicide-tourism stories, England’s head prosecutor published guidelines that, in essence, decriminalized family and friends’ assisting the suicides of the dying, disabled, and infirm…
3. IVF anarchy... IVF has led to childbirth as manufacture, with our progeny chosen for their genetic makeup. It is likely that babies will soon be created with three parents. What comes next is anybody’s guess.
2. The Bush embryonic-stem-cell funding policy. When Pres. George W. Bush signed an executive order restricting federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research to lines already in existence on Aug. 9, 2001, he set off a nearly decade-long firestorm…But the real poke in the eye for the Science Establishment and liberal media was that Bush’s policy sent a clarion message that embryos — which are, after all, nascent human life — matter, thrusting his policy into a buzz saw involving our most touchy cultural issues, particularly abortion.
1. The dehydration of Terri Schiavo. The emotionally wrenching tug of war over the life of Terri Schiavo, covered sensationally by the international media and culminating in her slow death, was — hands down — the decade’s most important story in bioethics (as well of one of the most important stories of the early 2000s). Who hasn’t heard her name? Who doesn’t have an opinion about what happened?
There is much more to say about all of these stories than I could in the abridged version presented here or in the entire article. But I think it is very clear now: bioethics is important. Soon, I’ll write up what I consider to be the ten biggest stories in bioethics of the coming decade.
January 8th, 2010 | 12:36 pm
“Radical environmentalism appears to have morphed into anti-humanism…” Yep, just like radical anti-environmentalism appears to have morphed into human exceptionalism.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 8th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Har de har.
January 8th, 2010 | 5:37 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Wesley J. Smith, Not Abortion. Not Abortion said: My and #8220;Top Ten Stories of the Decade and #8221; in Bioethics http://bit.ly/4ZoHxy #abortion #prolife [...]
January 8th, 2010 | 6:06 pm
HW –
Your comment betrays an ignorance of… um… Oh yes -
HISTORY of the concept of human exceptionalism.
Nice irony there.
January 8th, 2010 | 6:10 pm
[...] a listing of the top ten stories in bioethics from ethicist Wesley [...]
January 8th, 2010 | 6:18 pm
HW, you also betray another bigoted position you hold: all people who don’t hold the “correct” position on one issue will hold “incorrect” positions on everything else.
Example: Faithful, orthodox religious people who are committed environmentalists and also subscribe to human exceptionalism.
I am one of the above, and so are many I know.
It’s not difficult to break your own stereotypes, if you really want to. You just have to try harder to get a more diverse group of friends& interlocuters, and then approach them without condescension.
Wishing you the courage to try something new in the new year.
January 8th, 2010 | 10:54 pm
The very existence of “bioethics” is a symptom of what’s wrong, and drives it.
The story is how many other Terry Schiavos there are. It goes on every day, and considering what happens to the young and disabled, consider what happens to the elderly. There’s the story.
January 9th, 2010 | 11:40 am
Right with you, Holy Terror!!
January 9th, 2010 | 7:25 pm
*bangs head to Bohemian Rhapsody*
Bioethics is a perfect example of what happens when you divorce God from nature, or as they say, faith from science. The game always begins with the nice idea that we can find a neutral ground and that science is “descriptive” not “proscriptive,” but in reality it never works out that way. In the end, we are force-fed a materialistic explanation of everything and a relativistic value system.
January 9th, 2010 | 8:29 pm
Anthony Mator,
You hit the nail on the head!
January 10th, 2010 | 4:29 pm
Kathleen Lundquist, Holyterror and SafePres:
Didn’t realize I’d created such a stir. Sorry, but I’ll hold to my belief that people who display a total lack of reason and understanding in one area are likely to display it in others. (myself included). So, when I hear people talking about virgins having children, the dead rising, and all the faithful having pie in the sky when they die, I immediately begin to wonder exactly how dependable their reasoning powers are in other areas. Call me prejudiced if you like, but in my opinion reasonable people stop believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny at around age seven or so, and in Christianity the minute they look behind the curtain and see that Oz the Great and Terrible ain’t so great and terrible at all.
January 10th, 2010 | 10:20 pm
Daniel,
I am so up on that nail it’s ridiculous!
What saddens me is that there are so many Christians who are ok with splitting their brains in half and leaving their God at the door of the science lab, on the flimsy justification that God doesn’t belong there because his existence is “unfalsifiable.” If the best we can say about God is that he is unfalsifiable (a term, btw, that can just as fairly be used to describe the current philosophy of science itself, which necessarily rests upon a foundation of circular reasoning), then I’m not sure what kind of “faith” that really is.
Faith means trust, and when you trust Someone, you don’t cast that Someone aside as unfalsifiable, in any context. I don’t want a faith in God that is flimsier than my faith in the existence of amoebas.
This dichotomy may seem like wisdom for a time, but then the Dawkinses and Hitchenses come back up for air every several years with their very logical objection that “if your God is unfalsifiable and there is nothing we can observe or reason that can lead to a logical belief in him, why are you people so stupid as to believe in Him anyway?” To which we who have compromised can give no good answer.
Thus, God has lost his place in the classroom, the laboratory, the public square of ideas, and finally our corporate morality.
January 11th, 2010 | 3:01 pm
HW:
I’ll bite – how do you explain Isaac Newton, who was both one of the finest mathematical and scientific minds in human history, and also a religious kook?
January 11th, 2010 | 7:49 pm
“9. The growth of biological colonialism…
Matters were even worse in China, where it was credibly charged that prisoners — perhaps practitioners of Falun Gong — were executed and their organs sold.”
Matters are worse than that: Mr Hu and his subordinate military authorities are guilty of an organised racket of advertising quick transplants supplied from stock of very healthy, ie Falun Gong, pre type matched victims ready for killing to order, atrocities “cruel, gross,horrifying, systematic, and widespread” – and publicised: Kilgour Matas report. And very weak responses from us.
January 12th, 2010 | 12:22 pm
SparcVark: Considering the time in which Newton lived there was room for superstition and error; lots of room. Otherwise rational people believed in the myths of Christianity because they had little knowledge of historical Christianity during the first several centuries of the CE. Ever wondered, for example, about why only certain books appear in the New Testament, and not others? Or how differently some highly respected biblical scholars translate biblical passages from Greek nowadays? Ever heard of the Gnostics? The Gospel of Mary? The Gospel of Judas? Do you know that it’s highly unlikely that the writers of the four synoptic Gospels actually witnessed any of the events about which they wrote? I admit it’s interesting to speculate about what Newton might have thought if he’d had the scholarly information that’s available today. My guess is he’d probably be on my side of the fence.
January 12th, 2010 | 7:30 pm
OH, dear heavens I hope this won’t devolve into one of those Internet Debate 101 discussions about if & how Christianity is so obviously bunk.
HW, if you get back around here and read this: I always find it amazing that people can claim that irrational people are in every way irrational, when just a minute amount of life experience tells us otherwise. Functioning, reasonable people hold irrational positions all the time, whether it is, “It’s ok for me to cheat on my wife because..” or, “I’m totally pro-life except for my own case where abortion is ok.” Or, think of NASA scientists who travel cross country to off the rival for their love’s affection. Think of astrophysicists who deny the Holocaust.
It is pure convenience to quickly and snobbily categorize people who disagree with you. It might even be true in some cases that *most* people who believe “X” also believe “Y” and also act like “Z.” But it is wrong, I think, to approach discussion with that assumption.
It is a profoundly loving and respectful act to engage in true discussion. If we do not approach one another with openness, decrying preconceived notions and reserving our prejudices, then we make our love and respect a lie.
If we do not see discussion as an act of love and respect, then we ought to admit that it is not discussion that we are attempting, but rather, just a chance to hear ourselves make declarations.
January 12th, 2010 | 7:32 pm
BTW, I am addressing above HistoryWriter’s logic, not endorsing his positions on the supposed irrationality of Christianity. My point is that no matter what you think about a person’s belief on any topic, you are not justified in putting them into a “stupid” box in your mind.
January 13th, 2010 | 9:29 am
holyterror: your logic is impeccable. Now if only people could carry that over into politics …
BTW, I am not out to debunk Christianity, nor am I out to debunk Santa Claus, the Great Pumpkin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I DO, however, oppose making irrationality the basis of legislation that will affect the lives of “non-believers,” and for that reason I oppose religion-based “ethics” and appeals to so-called “natural law” (e.g., the theory of “human exceptionalism”) as rationales for restrictive legislation.
January 27th, 2010 | 8:20 pm
Falun Gong’s organ harvesting allegation has long been discredited:
- Most recently by the Ottawa Citizen:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/observer/story.html?id=2c15d2f0-f0ab-4da9-991a-23e4094de949
- Unannounced visit inside China US embassy:
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/April/20060416141157uhyggep0.5443231.html
http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL33437.pdf (section CRS-7)
- Undercover investigation by Chinese dissidnet Harry Wu:
http://www.cicus.org/info_eng/artshow.asp?ID=6491
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20060806_1.htm
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact