What is "Bioethics"? pg.11

 « 1  , 2  , 3  , 4  , 5  , 6  , 7  , 8  , 9  , 10  , 11  , 12  »

Endnotes: (con't)

100  For a long and detailed analysis of the "delayed personhood" arguments of 28 current bioethicists see my Doctoral Dissertation, A Philosophical and Scientific Analysis of the Nature of the Early Human Embryo (Department of Philosophy, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C: University Microfilms, 1991). A summary of the dissertation can be found in Dianne N. Irving, "Science, Philosophy and Expertise: An Evaluation of the Arguments on 'Personhood'", Linacre Quarterly (Feb. 1993), 60(1):18-46.[Back]

101  A short list of bioethicists who argue for "personhood" at "brain birth" (or beyond) includes: Jonathan Glover, What Sort of People Should There Be? (New York: Pelican Books, 1984); Glover, Causing Death and Saving Lives (New York: Pelican Books, 1977); Clifford Grobstein, "The Early Development of Human Embryos", Journal of Medicine and Philosophy (1985),10:213-236; Grobstein, Science and the Unborn (New York: Basic Books, 1988), p. 61; Joseph Fletcher, Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics (New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), and in Jonsen, pp. 46-47; Tris Englehardt, The Foundations of Bioethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 111; John Robertson, "Extracorporeal Embryos and the Abortion Debate", Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy (1986), 2;53;53-70; Robertson, "Symbolic Issues in Embryo Research", The Hastings Center Report (1995, Jan./Feb.), 37-38; Robertson, "The Case of the Switched Embryos", The Hastings Center Report (1995), 25:6:13-24; Michael Tooley, "Abortion and Infanticide", in The Rights and Wrongs of Abortion, M. Cohen et al (ed.) (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974), pp. 59 and 64; Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse, "The Ethics of Embryo Research", Law, Medicine and Health Care (1987), 14:13-14; Kuhse and Singer, "For Sometimes Letting - and Helping - Die", Law, Medicine and Health Care (1986), 3:40:149-153; Kuhse and Singer, Should The Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants (Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 138; Singer, "Taking Life: Abortion", in Practical Ethics (London: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 122-123; Singer and Kuhse, Stephen Buckle, Karen Dawson, Pascal Kasimba (eds.), Embryo Experimentation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990); R.M. Hare, "When Does Potentiality Count? A Comment on Lockwood," Bioethics (1988), 2:3:214; Michael Lockwood, "When Does Life Begin?", in Michael Lockwood, (ed.), Moral Dilemmas in Modern Medicine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), p.10; Hans-Martin Sass, "Brain Life and Brain Death: A Proposal for Normative Agreement," Journal of Medicine and Philosophy (1989), 14:45-59; Michael Lockwood, "Warnock versus Powell (and Harradine): When Does Potentiality Count?" Bioethics (1988), 2:3:187-213; see Robert Edwards, Donald MacKay, Bernard B. Haring, D. Wells, in D. Gareth Jones, "Brain Birth and Personal Identity", Journal of Medical Ethics (1989), 15:4; Goldenring, "Development of the Fetal Brain," New England Journal of Medicine (1982), 307:564; Thomasine Kushner, "Having a Life Versus Being Alive," Journal of Medical Ethics (1984), 10:5-8; M.C. Shea, "Embryonic Life and Human Life," Journal of Medical Ethics (1985), 11:205-209; Richard G. Frey, The Ethics of the Search for Benefits: Animal Experimentation in Medicine", in Raanan Gillon (ed.), Principles of Health Care Ethics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994), pp. 1067-1075.[Back]

102  See, e.g., the classic and extensively used texts of Frederick Copleston A History of Philosophy (New York: Image Books/Doubleday, 1993), Volumes I - IX.[Back]

103  For very extensive references on these points in the history of ethical theory, see: Irving, A Philosophical and Scientific Analysis of the Nature of the Early Human Embryo (Doctoral Dissertation; Department of Philosophy, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C: University Microfilms, 1991); Irving, "Science, Philosophy and Expertise: An Evaluation of the Arguments on 'Personhood'", Linacre Quarterly (Feb. 1993), 60(1):18-46; Irving, "The Impact of Scientific 'Misinformation' on Other Fields: Philosophy, Theology, Biomedical Ethics and Public Policy", Accountability in Research (April 1993), 2(4):243-272; Irving, "Quality Assurance Auditors: Between a Rock and a Hard Place", Quality Assurance: Good Practice, Regulation, and Law March (1994), 3(1):33-52. [Back]

104  Peter Singer, "Taking Life: Abortion," in Practical Ethics (London: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 118; see also, Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer, "For Sometimes Letting - and Helping - Die," Law, Medicine and Health Care (1986), 3:4:149-153; Kuhse and Singer, Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 138.[Back]

105  Ibid., Singer, Practical Ethics, p. 123.[Back]

106  R.G. Frey, "The Ethics of the Search For Benefits: Animal Experimentation in Medicine", in Raanan Gillon (ed.), Principles of Health Care Ethics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994), pp. 1067-1075.[Back]

107  David S. Oderberg, "A Messenger of Death at Princeton", Washington Times (July 30, 1998), A17.[Back]

108  R.M. Hare, "When Does Potentiality Count? A Comment on Lockwood", Bioethics (1988), 2:3:214.[Back]

109  Winston L. Duke, "The New Biology", Reason Magazine (August 1972), pp. 4-11.[Back]

110  Jonsen, pp. 108, 243.[Back]

111  For several excellent recent analyses of the euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide debates and their connection with bioethics, see Wesley J. Smith: Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope From Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder (New York: Times Books/Random House, 1997); "Storm Warnings Over Oregon," Western Journal of Medicine (October 1999), 171:220-221; "Privacy That Kills," Weekly Standard (July 17, 2000), pp. 22-23; "Twin Killing," Weekly Standard (October 9, 2000), p. 18; "Killing Them Softly," National Review Online (October 31, 2000); "Better Dead Than Fed," National Review (July 27, 1994), pp. 48-49 and 66; "The Living Will's Fatal Flaw," Wall Street Journal (May 4, 1994); "The Deadly Ethics of Futile Care Theory," Weekly Standard (November30/December 7, 1998), pp. 32-35; "Suicide Pays," First Things (June/July 1999), 94:14-15; "Don't Rationalize Suicide," The Wall Street Journal (August 3, 1999), p. A22.[Back]

112  Victoria Button, "Control Gene Pool, Says Ethicist", The Age [http://www.theage.com.au], October 13, 2000. For lengthy and articulate writings linking eugenics and international bioethics with the United Nations, the Humane Genome Project, genetic pre-selection of embryos, abortion, human embryo research, stem cell research, fetal research, cloning, formation of chimeras, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, research with the mentally ill, etc., see bioethicist/biologist and U.N. consultant Daryl Macer 's published books and articles posted on his web site: http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/index.html.[Back]

113  Watson's quote is from Gregory Stock and John Campbell, (eds.), Engineering the Human Germline (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 79, 85; Pence, Who's Afraid of Human Cloning? (New York: Roman & Littlefield, 1998), p. 168; Silver, Remaking Eden: How Cloning and Beyond Will Change the Human Family (New York: Avon Books, 1997), pp. 4-7, 11; Fukuyama, "Second Thoughts: The Last Man in a Bottle", in The National Interest (1999), pp. 28, 33; Thurow, Creating Wealth: The New Rules for Individuals, Companies and Nations in a Knowledge-Based Economy (New York: Harper Collins, 1999), p. 33; Stock, Metaman: The Merging of Humans and Machines into a Global Superorganism (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), pp. 165, 168. All of these quotations are from Richard Hayes and Marcy Damovsky, Exploratory Initiative on the New Human Genetic Technologies, c/o Public Media Center, 466 Green Street, San Francisco, CA 94133; phone 415-434-1403; e-mail: rhayes@publicmediacenter.org.[Back]

114  H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., "Viability and the Use of the Fetus", in Tom L. Beauchamp and Terry P. Pinkard (eds.), Ethics and Public Policy: An Introduction to Ethics (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1983, pp. 299-230; reprinted from W.B. Bondeson, H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., S. F. Spicker, and Daniel Winship (eds.), Abortion and the Status of the Fetus (Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel Publishing Company, 1982)[Back]

115  [Back]

H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., The Foundations of Bioethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).

116  B. Jowett, The Dialogues of Plato (New York: Random House, 1937; Vol. I), "The Republic".[Back]

117  See Irving, "Academic Fraud and Conceptual Transfer in Bioethics: Abortion, Human Embryo Research and Psychiatric Research", in Joseph W. Koterski (ed.), Life And Learning IV (Washington, D.C.: University Faculty for Life, 1995), pp. 193-215.[Back]

118  [Ethics Advisory Board] Public Law 92-463 "Federal Advisory Committee Act," [45CFR46, 46.204], 92nd Congress, 2nd session; 86 STAT 770 (Oct. 6, 1972).[Back]

119  Jonsen, p. 106.[Back]

120  Ethics Advisory Board, DHEW, Report and Conclusions: HEW Support of Research Involving Human In vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer, May 1979 Conclusions 1 & 2, p. 101; pp. 104-107.[Back]

121  Jonsen, p. 312.[Back]

122  In his legal briefs, law journal articles and bioethics articles, Robertson quotes extensively for pages from Clifford Grobstein's "scientific" and patently political writings on the "pre-embryo". In the Tennessee frozen embryo case, the lower court found with internationally renown Dr. Jerome Lejeune's scientific testimony, and concluded that there was no such thing as a "pre-embryo" [see lower court testimony of Lejeune in Davis v. Davis, Tennessee Court of Appeals at Knoxville, No. 190, slip op. at 5-6 (Sept 13, 1990)]. However, on appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, the judge held that Lejeune's testimony "revealed a profound confusion between science and religion" [Sec. 34, ftnt. 12], accepted the "pre-embryo" arguments of Robertson, and reversed the lower court ruling [842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. 1992)]. Interestingly, the judge also stated: "Left undisturbed, the trial court's ruling would have afforded preembryos the legal status of 'persons' and vested them with legally cognizable interests separate from those of their progenitors. Such a decision would doubtless have had the effect of outlawing IVF programs in the state of Tennessee" (emphasis mine). For other court cases in which the "pre-embryo" argument has succeeded, see, e.g., Kass v. Kass, 673 N.Y.S.2d 350, 91 N.Y..2d 554 (1998), in which the embryos were ridiculously referred to as "pre-zygotes"; A.Z. v. B.Z., a Massachusetts frozen embryo; J.B. v. M.B. on appeal now to the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division (Docket No. A-1544--98 T3). Of course, Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] referred several times to the fetus as a "potential human being" and as a "potential human person" -- another form of a "delayed personhood" argument. Roe was then used as stari decisis in other U.S. Supreme Court cases, e.g., Casey, Webster, Carhart, etc. For similar work by John Robertson, see "Extracorporeal Embryos and the Abortion Debate", Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy (1986), 2;53;53-70; "Symbolic Issues in Embryo Research", The Hastings Center Report (Jan/Feb. 199), 37-38; and, "The Case of the Switched Embryos", The Hastings Center Report (1995), 25:6:13-24. [Back]

123  President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Summing Up: The Ethical and Legal Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office (March 1983), p. 2, note 2. Further references to this report will be referred to simply as "President's Commission: Summing Up".[Back]

124  [President's Commission] Title III of Public Law 95-622, codified at 42 U.S.C. Ch.6A, Nov. 9, 1978; Summing Up, p. 2, note 1.[Back]

125  President's Commission: Summing Up, "Table of Contents". The reports were published serially. See also, Jonsen, pp. 107-118.[Back]

126  Jonsen, p. 107.[Back]

127  President's Commission: Summing Up, pp. 4-6.[Back]

128  Ibid., pp. 4-6.[Back]

129  Ibid., pp. 6-8.[Back]

130  Jonsen, pp. 109-110.[Back]

131  Office of the Maryland Attorney General, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Jack Schwartz, Assistant Attorney General, Initial Report of the Attorney General's Research Working Group (October 1996 Draft: note 10 references the National Commission's Belmont Report; text on p. 5 states, "All involved in the Working Group ascribe to the perspective on research well-summarized by Beauchamp and Childress", referenced in note 13). Among the plethora of serious flaws in this document is the use of the "legal" concept of "substituted judgment". Although the final version of the proposed statute, "Decisionally Incapacitated Research Subject Protection Act", was passed by the Maryland House, it was finally defeated by the Maryland General Assembly on March 22, 1999, and withdrawn -- "for now".[Back]

132  Ibid., p. 3. See my invited response to this proposed statute in, Irving, "Maryland State Proposed Statute for Research Using "Decisionally Incapacitated" Human Subjects: The Legalization of Normative Bioethics Theory", Accountability in Research (in press). [Back]

133  National Institutes of Health: Report of the Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Health, December 1988), Volume 1.[Back]

134  Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health, Report of the Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Health, 1988).[Back]

135  National Institutes of Health: Report of the Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Health, December 1988), Volume 1.

Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health, Report of the Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Health, 1988).[Back]

136  NIH Revitalization Act (1993), P.L. No. 103-43, codified at U.S.C. sec 289a et seq.[Back]

137  As proponent Joseph Palca, writing in the Hastings Center Report, so effusively and unabashedly stated: "With lobbying support from the American Fertility Society, and the willing cooperation of Senator Kennedy and Representative Waxman, they hit on the strategy of simply eliminating the requirement that the EAB approve IVF research projects. Language doing that was "slipped into the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 ... attracting very little attention" Joseph Palca, "A Word to the Wise", Hastings Center Report (Mar.-April 1994), p. 5. [Back]

138  National Institutes of Health: Report of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Health, 1994); Jonsen, p. 231, note 112. See also, Dorothy Vawter, Warren Kearney, Karen Gervais, Arthur Caplan, Daniel Garry and Carol Tauer, The Use of Human Fetal Tissue: Scientific, Ethical and Policy Concerns (Minneapolis: Center for Biomedical Ethics, University of Minnesota, 1990).[Back]

139  National Institutes of Health: Report of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel (Washington, D.C.: National Institutes of Health, 1994).[Back]

140  National Institutes of Health; Human Embryo Research Panel; Transcripts of the Meetings, February 2, 1994, pp. 97-98.[Back]

141  [Back]

Ibid., pp. 31 ff.

 « 1  , 2  , 3  , 4  , 5  , 6  , 7  , 8  , 9  , 10  , 11  , Next page: Endnotes: (con't)  »