Ethics of Immortality
posted by Maurice Bernstein, M.D. @ 4:11:00 PM
15 comments
Bioethics Discussion Blog
What have you been reading, hearing or TV viewing that has provoked some feelings of comfort or concern about what is happening in the world of medicine, medical care, treatment or science? Ethics is all about doing the right thing. Are you aware of any issues in medicine or biologic science which are being done right, could be improved or in fact represent totally unethical behavior? Write about them here.. and I will too! ..Maurice (DoktorMo@aol.com)
REMINDER: I AM POSTING A NEW TOPIC ABOUT ONCE A WEEK OR PERHAPS TWICE A WEEK. HOWEVER, IF YOU DON'T FIND A NEW TOPIC POSTED, THERE ARE AS OF MARCH 2013 OVER 900 TOPIC THREADS TO WHICH YOU CAN READ AND WRITE COMMENTS. I WILL BE AWARE OF EACH COMMENTARY AND MAY COME BACK WITH A REPLY.
TO FIND A TOPIC OF INTEREST TO YOU ON THIS BLOG, SIMPLY TYPE IN THE NAME OR WORDS RELATED TO THE TOPIC IN THE FIELD IN THE LEFT HAND SIDE AT TOP OF THE PAGE AND THEN CLICK ON “SEARCH BLOG”. WITH WELL OVER 900 TOPICS, MOST ABOUT GENERAL OR SPECIFIC ETHICAL ISSUES BUT NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO ANY SPECIFIC DATE OR EVENT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND WHAT YOU WANT. IF YOU DON’T PLEASE WRITE TO ME ON THE FEEDBACK THREAD OR BY E-MAIL DoktorMo@aol.com
IMPORTANT REQUEST TO ALL WHO COMMENT ON THIS BLOG: ALL COMMENTERS WHO WISH TO SIGN ON AS ANONYMOUS NEVERTHELESS PLEASE SIGN OFF AT THE END OF YOUR COMMENTS WITH A CONSISTENT PSEUDONYM NAME OR SOME INITIALS TO HELP MAINTAIN CONTINUITY AND NOT REQUIRE RESPONDERS TO LOOK UP THE DATE AND TIME OF THE POSTING TO DEFINE WHICH ANONYMOUS SAID WHAT. Thanks. ..Maurice
FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK! WRITE YOUR FEEDBACK ABOUT THIS BLOG, WHAT IS GOOD, POOR AND CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT TO THIS FEEDBACK THREAD
Saturday, May 30, 2020
About Me
- Name: Maurice Bernstein, M.D.
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
Previous Posts
- Bioethics and Dealing with the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Preserving Patient Dignity (Formerly Patient Modes...
- NO RESPONSE is "NO DISCUSSION" (2)
- Preserving Patient Dignity (Formerly Patient Modes...
- Preserving Patient Dignity (Formerly Patient Modes...
- Preserving Patient Dignity (Formerly: Patient Mode...
- Preserving Patient Dignity (Formerly: Patient Mode...
- Preserving Patient Dignity (Formerly: Patient Mode...
- NO RESPONSE is NO "DISCUSSION"
- Preserving Patient Dignity (Formerly: Patient Mode...
Links
- Bioethics Discussion Pages
- Complementary and Alternative Medicine Law Blog
- HealthLaw Blog
- The American Journal of Bioethics Editors Blog
- Shrinkette
- Women's Bioethics Project
- Medical Modesty Blog THOSE INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING ADVOCACY FOR PATIENT MODESTY, GO TO
- THIS ADVOCACY DEVELOPMENT BLOG
FAIR USE NOTICE:
If this site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner, it is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of the ethics dealing with medical practice, medical care, science and scientific research, human rights, social justice and, in addition, the law and politics which cover these areas. It is believed that this use constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed to visitors of this “Bioethics Discussion Blog” without profit to the blog or to those who by visiting this blog have expressed interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
The material in this site is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and is not intended to be a substitute for a health care provider's consultation. Please consult your own appropriate health care provider about the applicability of any opinions or recommendations with respect to your own symptoms or medical conditions. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
15 Comments:
I'll put my two cents in. Much as I'd like to go on living, immortality would not be a good thing. Nature needs to refresh itself in order for the whole to remain healthy. Any ecologically healthy system needs a process of constant renewal. Without renewal there is stagnation and decline. People and societies are no different.
My eight great grandparents were all born between 1863 - 1882 and thus if still alive would be 150+/- years old. What kind of society would we have if their generation was still alive and in charge? Even me now only in my 60's would be perfectly content with most aspects of the status quo continuing as is. The system serves my interests rather well and the little bubble I live in is quite pleasant, yet I am aware enough to recognize that the system which created that bubble needs to keep evolving to meet the needs of the whole.
So I vote no on an immortality vaccine.
Biker, your comment to this blog thread makes a lot of sense. The basic logistic question is "of what or whose benefit" will be the results of immortality for all who currently are alive at the time of the vaccine's creating and use. Can we even today handle the results and behavior of what has already been passed on or added to us and our cultures from previous generations? Immortality could lead to chaos in so many ways including living within a limited environment, earth unless we could move other planets as I had suggested in my introduction.
Maybe we should all disregard the concept of human immortality and attend to improve all our current lives. ..Maurice.
Maurice,
This is what patients are sold by advertising and PSA: If you are not screened for cancer or take this drug, you are going to die. The implication is that if you do, you live for ever. This is evident in the harms of over diagnosis/overtreatment of cancer.
-- Banterings
Relative to Banterings' last post is the concept of ethical autonomy with regard to the opportunity of "living forever'. Should every living person have the opportunity to declare their desire for a limited lifespan.
These days, we have the concept of suicide which can be attempted, completed or completed with help by others based on the individual's self-decision . If the potion in the flask (in our introductory graphic) is "ever to be effective" would it be the best of ethical behavior to allow every human the decision whether or not to "take it"?
By the way, there are many other so-called autonomous decisions in life which are made by humans. Shouldn't the decision for self-immortality be likewise a personal autonomous decision? ..Maurice.
Maurice,
My point is that the profession of medicine has used the (implied) promise of immortality as a means of compliance with patients.
This has lead to too much preventative medicine. The annual physical's benefits have been questioned. Prostate cancer screening has also been questioned in harms vs. benefits. One suggestion is that is driven by profit, specifically profit from prostate biopsies.
As prostate biopsy is one of the most commonly performed office procedures in ... that maximizes profit as opposed to practicing evidence-based medicine.
-- Banterings
Banterings, I really appreciate the statement which the author wrote in the Medical Journal of Australia, you first link on your last posting.
In the new millennium, science has a tantalising new promise — that the human genome project will provide the tools to conquer death. William Haseltine, the project’s superstar, has thrown down the gauntlet, declaring that “death is a series of preventable diseases.” Armed with magic bullets from the genomic armoury, the soldiers of science will stalk and pick off one disease after another in the battle for immortality. However, there is danger in the hype.
The very denial of death and dying will undoubtedly influence medical thinking, feeling and doing. Daniel Callahan, the US ethicist, argues that the modern research imperative [to vanquish death] and the clinical imperative [to accept death as an inevitable reality] are in conflict. Such inherent conflict may well cause physicians to view death as accidental, or even as failure. More worrying would be the undermining of society’s imperative to ensure humane care of the dying.
Does anyone think it would be the wisest humane behavior to throw the concept or goal for immortality "out the window"? ..Maurice.
Part of living is dying. That shouldn't be taken as permission to shorten the lives of others or even our own lives. And old age is spiritually needed for now. God's tough love towards us. JF
Maurice,
The problem is that the profession of medicine AGAIN gets it wrong. This is best exemplified in the topic of "dying with dignity" (which was just brought up as euthanasia in Volume 111). It is the quality of life, not the quantity (of days). The profession has squeezed out 6 extra in terminal patients (in a catatonic state with tubes in every orifice). Yet, most would forego those 6 months to pass at home peacefully surrounded by family and friends while remaining fully clothed in a dignified manner.
It is folly to believe in immortality. In almost all faiths, immortality is the gift of God reserved for us when we pass from this existence to the next. Immortality is not achievable without death (of the body). I have previously demonstrated that our "soul" (energy) survives after death. There is no debating that people have an electrical charge (look at an EKG).
The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of energy) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed (energy can be converted from one form into another). (Julius Robert Mayer in 1842)
The law of Conservation of mass states that mass is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed (mass can be converted from one form into another). (Antoine Lavoisier in 1785)
Albert Einstein announced his discovery of the equation E = mc2 and, as a consequence, the two laws merged into the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy: the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant, and mass and energy can interconvert (change form).
Therefore, the energy that was our consciousness does not disappear, but continues to exist (as energy), perhaps the Judeo-Christian term of "the soul" is a better description.
That being said, the profession of medicine can NOT give us something that the laws of the universe (and God as the author of those laws) has already given us. As you have stated, to "vanquish death" and to "accept death" are not only in conflict with each other, but an oxymoron. Let me demonstrate with the irresistible force paradox:
The unstoppable force paradox, also called the irresistible force paradox, shield and spear paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" The immovable object and the unstoppable force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution. Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two entities.
The paradox arises because it rests on two incompatible premises—that there can exist simultaneously such things as unstoppable forces and immovable objects. The "paradox" is flawed because if there exists an unstoppable force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object and vice versa.
Framing this in the Judeo-Christian context, we find death to be that of the physical and immortality to be a survival of the soul (energy).
Finally I have to ask how one defines immortality: does this mean that death by natural means (old age) comes, the body does not die because all diseases have been eradicated, OR one can NOT be killed by ANY means (physical violence, war, assault, etc.)?
Would that mean that we are no longer susceptible to mutations (at a DNA level)? If that is the case, then as a species we would no longer be evolving. We would never achieve enlightenment as a people, we would never obtain a higher existence (one common theme becoming beings of pure energy).
-- Banterings
Banterings, perhaps some of your questions can be supported or rejected by answering the question "Is immortality unethical?" with a list of YES and NO responses with detailing. I think you and others will find the article in debatewise.org productive in this regard and that publication could be the basis for further discussion here. We could even dissect each here:
Immortality, living forever, has always been an ambition and goal for humans. And at least in so far as beating aging is concerned it is coming closer to reality as we cure diseases and we may eventually find a way to stop or turn back aging. If this happens would it be right for us to go ahead and do it? There would be immense consequences such as population problems, possibly great expense and inequality as some are able to take advantage of the new technology and others cannot. At the moment the ethics of immortality are pretty fantastical as it is unlikely to affect anyone who is currently alive but perhaps we should get the debate rolling to help our children’s children decide!
All the Yes points:
1.It will widen the rich/poor divide.
2.Overcrowding
3.The old will outnumber the young.
Mental health problems will be exacerbated.
4.Immortality without a task suited to immortality is meaningless.
All the No points:
1.Its our ethical duty to develop immortality.
2.We would be letting down our species not to.
3.Life extension is a science.
4.All major religions in the world promise an immortal afterlife/lives(for those who believe in multiple reincarnations)
5.ANY decision on how long someone should be allowed to live is completely arbitrary.
How is this to begin a more detailed discussion? And you might have more YES and NO points to offer. ..Maurice.
We are overcrowded now. The Earth has twice as many people as it can (should) support. The next epoch in human history is when we step off the Earth to live. This is the real reason that we are studying life in space at the International Space Station, going back to the moon, and going to Mars.
Other points to consider is are the old going to be frail and decrepit, OR will their bodies regenerate for eternal youth? That would make an educational/experience/wisdom divide between young and old.
Does eternal life mean eternal youth?
-- Banterings
Banterings, to answer your question "does eternal life mean eternal youth?" From Quora and one answer by Nour Noujaim :
"Immortality is is an eternal life. It means death won't occur and you will go on with your life forever. Eternal youth is a different concept. Just like the name says, eternal youth is the persistence of YOUTH. It means no matter how old you grow, you will forever have a young soul, a child's heart, a youthful energy…So death is possible and will happen in that scenario, but as long as you live, there is inside of you the soul of a youthful person. That youth is immortal."
Fortunately or unfortunately, there can be philosophic arguments for and against the value of either. ..Maurice.
And here is an argument against immortality as written by Gael Bemis with the following Abstract:
As transhumanist philosophy begins to integrate new technologies of biological
enhancement, life extension, and anti-ageing therapies, the quest for immortality has become increasingly relevant. Through a discussion of the value assignments socially given
to life and death, and the implications these values have for core principles of bioethics, I
seek to expose the ethical weakness in advocating for immortal therapies. I draw primarily on John Hardwig’s controversial proposal of a “duty to die,” and mortality ethics as
presented by the members of the 2003 President’s Council on Bioethics, in my critique of
immortal advocacy. I consider bioethicist John Harris’s argument for promoting immortal
therapies, and propose that a justification for immortality as he presents it is rooted in socially established fearful and isolationist narrative. In response, I call for dissociating from
such a narrative that devalues mortality, and assert that life and death cannot be ethically
polarized. Additionally, I argue that it is immoral to advocate for immortal therapies, as doing so chafes against all established bioethical principles. .
The presentation is concluded with the following conclusion:
As in all gardens—whether they be
of crops, flowers, or of the fruits and labors of our own lives—there are seasons, the death
of one necessary for the birth of the next. As in all gardens, the tenderness with which
one nurtures the bloom of spring earns its sweetness from the understanding that it will expire.
Is anybody interested in testing the contents of that filled flask presented in that cartoon starting this blog thread topic? ..Maurice.
Consider: the Lost Art of Dying ..Maurice.
Immortality would deny each individual's opportunity to finally define their life and perhaps find a connection to the life of others. An example of such a potential insight is set by the poem "I Died for Beauty" written by American poet Emily Dickinson:
I died for beauty, but was scarce
Adjusted in the tomb,
When one who died for truth was lain
In an adjoining room.
He questioned softly why I failed?
"For beauty," I replied.
"And I for truth,--the two are one;
We brethren are," he said.
And so, as kinsmen met a night,
We talked between the rooms.
Until the moss had reached our lips,
And covered up our names.
What is missing from immortality is a final self-critique of ones own life. ..Maurice.
Here is another resource presenting the argument against living forever. (Click to review}.
Here is the Abstract of that full article from the British "Journal of Medical Ethics".
The wish to extend the human lifespan has a long tradition in many cultures. Optimistic views of the possibility of achieving this goal through the latest developments in medicine feature increasingly in serious scientific and philosophical discussion. The authors of this paper argue that research with the explicit aim of extending the human lifespan is both undesirable and morally unacceptable. They present three serious objections, relating to justice, the community and the meaning of life.
..Maurice.
Post a Comment
<< Home