Our readings this week focus on genetics: stem cell research & cloning. Cody is going to summarize and provide a few discussion questions on the reading about killing embryos. It is a perfect reading for him, don't you think? :) Then the rest of us will ..... discuss.
[Cody: cut and paste your summary & questions into the first response after this post]
Outline of “Killing Embryos for Stem Cell Research” by Jeff McMahan
ReplyDelete1: Summary
The author details his belief that objections to killing embryos for stem cell research (SCR) is based upon two presuppositions, which he believes are false. These are: 1) that the embryo is the earliest stage of a human life, and therefore has the same type of existence as any person alive today, and 2) that because we are essentially human organisms (that is, just by mere existence we are a human organism) we demand the same respect for human dignity at every point in our existence, including the embryonic one. The author refutes the first by stating his belief that the point which delineates a human existence from an embryonic one is the point at which there is significant enough cell differentiation to allow one to observe the clear working together of various organ systems for the life of a more complex higher organism. Before this point, he argues, the cells of the zygote can be induced to become any cell type, and a defect in this induction could produce a group of cells which would not lead to a human life at all (for example, if all cells were induced to become skin cells). The author refutes the second presupposition by claiming that even if his first argument were null and the embryo was a human body from the beginning, we are still not essentially human merely by the presence of a human body. Rather, he claims, we gain a human existence when we gain the ability for higher consciousness. He uses as an example a victim of dementia. He argues that this person is a human existence as long as their consciousness exists. When the person no longer exhibits higher consciousness, they (their human existence) have left the organismal body that could still continue on for some time. He further establishes his view by writing that despite science having a definition for an organism, scientific experimentation cannot prove nor refute the essential existence of an organism because this is a metaphysical question, which should be left to the philosophers such as himself.
2: Areas of Concern/ Major Questions
ReplyDeleteThe two main questions the author raises are: 1) Is an embryo the earliest stage of human life with the same existence as living humans already born? 2) Are we essentially human just because we live in a human body? Or does our existence truly begin at the time of higher consciousness formation?
3. Discussion Questions
1. McMahan says that having the cells of the embryo enclosed in the zona pellucida and working intricately and accurately together toward the familiar human form does not make them a single organism any more than have a collection of marbles in a bag makes them a single entity. If McMahan’s view that embryos are not humans until they show sufficient cell differentiation to support the highly organized human structure common to us all is correct, then what about persons whose organs/groups of organs are failing? Think about dialysis patients, oxygen-dependent patients, patients with liver failure, etc. Are they, according to McMahan’s definition of a human, no longer human because they do not possess in themselves the working differentiated organ systems necessary to sustain the higher human life form?
2. If the liver failure patient from question 1 gets a liver transplant, are they then considered a human according to McMahan? If yes, why? If not, are they not considered human because the organ they now possess to support higher life was once part of another human’s complex of differentiated cells.
3. Do you support McMahan’s higher consciousness definition of life? Answer using both the beginning and ending of life as references. (For example, if you feel, as McMahan does, that a dementia patient is no longer human after their higher functioning has ceased, does the embryo not begin to be human in existence until it gains consciousness.
4. Many scientists believe that the interaction of the cells in the embryo with each other and their rapid and extremely precise responses to stimuli, both internal and external, show a sort of pre-neuronal consciousness. Do you agree or disagree? Is your answer to question 3, supported or refuted by this? If it refutes your answer, how do you respond to this challenge?
1) I would say that the person is still considered to be a human under McMahan's definition, because technically these organ systems are still differentiated. Even though the organ isn't properly functioning, the person still has other differentiated cells acting in accordance with each other throughout the body. Someone needing a transplant still has the capacity to use his or her consciousness, which doesn't answer the question, but the fact that they have this sense of consciousness indicates that at least the nerve system is working.... this sounds very elementary, but they have at least one system working and functioning, and they have a consciousness - they're human.
ReplyDelete2) If a patient receives a liver transplant, they would still be a human. As I stated previously, we're assuming this recipient still has a consciousness and other organ systems to be considered a living human being. I think it is the donor who is no longer "human" under McMahan's definition. The donor no longer has this organ, therefore isn't utilizing the organ system, and isn't living. No, my dude, you're not human according to McMahan.
3) So McMahan's definition of a human has nothing to do with being an organism, but rather having a consciousness. I agree with him, but only to an extent. Let's use a pregnant woman as an example. At what stage would you consider the baby to be human? McMahan would say when it develops the basics of consciousness (around 22-28 weeks). To be human, I do agree a consciousness is the main attribute that sets aside the human beings from other organisms, but having a consciousness and having the capability to obtain consciousness is different (which he explains). When organ systems start to develop in the embryo is the point at which a human is forming, which includes the nervous system (and the brain...), and therefore they have the capability to form a mind. I would consider them a developing organism at this point. I then ask, if this developing organism were to be used for testing at about 20 weeks into pregnancy, would it be unethical to kill this organism for research? I want to say that they are not human, but the fact that this fetus is so close to becoming a "human" makes it wrong to do. From McMahan's essay, it seemed as if we could kill organisms up to this stage because they don't have a consciousness yet. And because of that assumption, I must disagree coming to this point. The same goes for a person with dementia. When they don't necessarily have their consciousness, is it okay to kill them? NO. They have the capability to have that consciousness.
4) I would agree that this is a sort of pre-neuronal consciousness. If we look at the different levels of evolution, we all had a common ancestor at one point (just expressing my opinion here), in which case homo sapiens didn't have a consciousness at one point, like every other organism. But we developed a mind from the same metabolic processes as them through evolutionary history. At the cellular level, I do believe this represents a pre-neuronal consciousness, and that even other organisms could possibly develop a mind if we were to fast forward the evolutionary process. My answer from 3 doesn't support or refute this, I feel, because at this level the organisms don't have that sense of organ structure.
1) I would argue that the person with the failure of an organ is still a human using McMahan’s other essential aspect of defining a human: consciousness. If the person experiencing organ failure still has a higher state of consciousness, then according to McMahan, the person is still human.
ReplyDeleteAlso, an organ that is failing still has differentiated cells and tissues, so technically still, according to McMahan’s first definition, the person is human. Organ failure results, in many cases, from many kinds of disorders causing impaired organ function at first, and then organ failure when it no longer can meet the body’s needs. It can result from impaired blood supply, from degenerative changes in the organ itself, from the accumulation of toxic products, etc. These things can happen at any time throughout one’s lifetime, and many times organ failure can depend on the CONSCIOUS decisions made throughout that life. There are those however, who are just the unlucky ones who made good, healthy decisions all their life, but still experienced an unfortunate diagnosis of organ failure. Though unfair and really unexplainable as to why it had to happen to said person, that person is still human. That person still has many other differentiated cells, allowing for specific tissues that come together to form other working organs and organ systems that allow us to live.
2) If the liver failure patient gets a liver transplant, the patient is still considered a human. Even though the patient received his working organ from another, he now has a working organ. According to Cody’s paraphrasing of McMahan argument, we are human at a where “there is significant enough cell differentiation to allow one to observe the clear working together of various organ systems for the life of a more complex higher organism.” Although the transplantee did not form that organ himself, we all can see that there is a clear working together of various with the new liver to support life of a complex organism.
3) I looked up what it actually meant to be conscious, and I found an important distinction: an unconscious person creates whatever happens in their life automatically, while a conscious person is in total control of what their mind does to create their life and circumstances. With that being said, and McMahan’s definition in mind, we could say that dementia patients and newborns are not human because they do not exhibit a higher degree of consciousness. Do I agree with this? Absolutely not, especially when considering a newborn baby. They cannot be expected to come out of the womb with a fully developed brain – that would be insane! Infants grow, they develop. They have the ability and capacity to grow and develop that higher state of consciousness that makes them human. They have the DNA that will control their further development, and will further allow the development of their brain and conscious abilities.
I agree with McMahan that having a higher state of consciousness does make us human, and definitely sets us apart from other mammals, but it’s simply ridiculous to say that infants are not humans because they do not yet have the ability to create their own life and circumstances! That ability will come with time!
4) My answer to question 3 and the distinction that I had found between being conscious and unconscious is refuted by this statement. I really cannot challenge the statement because I don’t know near enough about embryonic development, nor do I really know a definition for “consciousness.” However, I will say that the statement makes it seem like the cells themselves have the consciousness, and not really the being making up the cells, because they are able to interact, and form responses to internal and external stimuli, while the being is not (at least while in the womb). The connections being made inside are automatic, and are not necessarily under the being’s control.
1.) As Zach and Becca have both said, I feel that by McMahan's definition, people with organ failure are in fact human. Even though the organ system is failing, it is still comprised of differentiated tissue. It is at this point in my defense that anything else I say would just be repeating Zach and Becca's answers...
ReplyDelete2.) Once again, I agree with the previous answers to the question in that they feel that the patient is still consider human. Using McMahan's definition of a human, the patient is still human in that he still has clearly distinguishable organ systems comprising of differentiated cells/tissues. With that, Zach's point that the donor is no longer human by McMahan's definition due to the fact that he no longer has that functioning organ system, holds some weight. My counterargument to it is this, "what if the organ donor donated one of his two working kidneys?" In this case, wouldn't the donor still be considered human as well because the excretory system can still function with a single kidney?
3.) I feel as though it would be inappropriate to say "ditto with Becca's answer" to this question, but she answered exactly what I believe to be the case with this question. It all comes down to how consciousness is defined, and by the current definition of consciousness, I feel that McMahan's definition of life is wrong. I feel that our higher brain functions/consciousness is what sets us apart from other animals but it does not necessarily define the boundaries of what is life. As Becca argues, infants who lack total consciousness are living, anyone would agree with that! I feel that McMahan's parameters for life are definitely flawed in this regard.
4.) My answer to question three is not refuted by this scientific discovery, at least not completely. I believe that McMahan's definition of life is flawed and that still holds true even in the light of this discovery. It could be argued then that my belief on the matter is flawed because early life shows a form of consciousness. To my defense, McMahan's definition is based off of "higher consciousness," and it is possible that this embryonic consciousness does not constitute "higher consciousness" and as such, my answer for question three still stands.
1) I feel that the patient would still be considered a human because the organs are still part of the same body failure or not. As Becca stated they would also still be considered a human because of McMahan's other qualifying aspect of humanity: consciousness. If the person is still awake and coherent despite to organ failure or illness then they would still be considered a human.
ReplyDelete2) If the patient were to receive a new liver they would still be considered a human. They would hopefully still be conscious after the transplant which would classify him as human. The patient also still has all of his organs, even if one is a transplant, they are working for him and functioning as a unit for his body/
3) I would have to say that I disagree with McMahan's definition of life.While consciousness is an important human aspect it is a controversial subject due to the fact that there are different definitions. The definition Becca made about consciousness shows how cold we can be. A newborn baby is most definitely a human because even if they cant vocalize their thoughts or feelings, it doesn't mean they don't have anything to say. As for a dementia patient they would still be considered a human until the end because even if they are out of it they still make up one organism.
4) I agree with this because it shows that even if not everything is set up and formed, there is still something there that is telling them where to be. While this is the same for each person at the end of the day everyone is different and unique.
1) I feel that the patient would still be considered a human because the organs are still part of the same body failure or not. As Becca stated they would also still be considered a human because of McMahan's other qualifying aspect of humanity: consciousness. If the person is still awake and coherent despite to organ failure or illness then they would still be considered a human.
ReplyDelete2) If the patient were to receive a new liver they would still be considered a human. They would hopefully still be conscious after the transplant which would classify him as human. The patient also still has all of his organs, even if one is a transplant, they are working for him and functioning as a unit for his body/
3) I would have to say that I disagree with McMahan's definition of life.While consciousness is an important human aspect it is a controversial subject due to the fact that there are different definitions. The definition Becca made about consciousness shows how cold we can be. A newborn baby is most definitely a human because even if they cant vocalize their thoughts or feelings, it doesn't mean they don't have anything to say. As for a dementia patient they would still be considered a human until the end because even if they are out of it they still make up one organism.
4) I agree with this because it shows that even if not everything is set up and formed, there is still something there that is telling them where to be. While this is the same for each person at the end of the day everyone is different and unique.