Scientific ethics

[Nyarlathotep]

(I put this here because ethics is a branch of philosophy. I won't whine if the mods move it though)

A couple of scientific ethical 'controveries' that have surfaced lately puzzle me. The first concerns the donation of eggs to South Korean stem cell researchers. Apparently, some people consider it unethical that he paid money to women to donate their eggs and others take issue with the fact that some of the eggs were donated by his assistants. Why is this unethical? I have never heard a good reason given why this is bad.

The other ethical controversy concerns the recent face transplant preformed by French doctors. The ethical concerns swirl around the facts that the patient will have to take immunosuppresant drugs for the rest of her life for what amounts to a cosmetic operation and certain psychological ramifications regarding identity. The first I can kind of understand (though I don't agree with the opposition). However this wasn't some mere nose job or tummy tuck, the woman had her face ripped off by a dog, and had trouble eating or breathing normally not to mention the psychological issues. The second concern is just silly in my view. Yeah the transplant changed her face, but so did having her original face ripped off by a dog. I don't get the 'unethicalness' of the operation.

Anyone have some insights?

 

[Melendwyr]

People complain about medical ethics when something they're not familiar with comes up. It's not really a matter of ethical concern.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Nyarlathotep, I agree that paying people to donate their eggs *could* be unethical, but that isn't necessarily so. I used to donate blood every two weeks, and I gave it away for free. There's nothing wrong with the people who sell their blood at places for a few bucks. Our whole capitalist system is based on the idea that it's good for people to profit from their assests. The questions is, when does it become profiteering for the seller, or exploitative for the buyer? Donating eggs is much more inconvient than donating blood, and involves many more risks. Fair compensation is justified.

As for the face thing, I don't see how anyone can object to allowin that poor woman to have a face transplant. It'll dramatically improve the quality of her life.

 

[Complexity]

Sperm donors often receive some compensation. I don't see any reason to treat egg donors differently.

I don't see why the identity of the donors of the eggs matters as long as the eggs were donated voluntarily. If the claim is being made that the assistants were being pressured to donate their eggs, either explicitly or implicitly, I could see that as an ethical issue.

The partial face transplant is a wonderful thing. I'm not at all impressed by the naysayers.

 

[Floyt]

To my eyes, giving away parts of your body of whichever description ("replaceables" like blood or eggs, or "irreplaceables" like organs) only becomes unethical when it gets moved out of the domain of a person's free will: if there is some pressure to do it. I guess most concerns in that direction just fear a rapidly developing slippery slope if the practice takes.

For example, assume that there is a well-known company on the market that will always and legally buy healthy eyeballs; and you are sitting on a crippling pile of debts and have a family to support. In this situation there might be a certain pressure on you to sell an eye, because it is a legal (if drastic) method to pay off your debts. Conceivably you might even be grateful to have that opportunity. But I can perfectly well understand the point of view that we'd better not let it come to this situation.

BTW, I think Larry Niven made the point quite nicely re: organ transplants in his Known Space timeline. Makes for good thrillers, though

 

[Nyarlathotep]

People complain about medical ethics when something they're not familiar with comes up. It's not really a matter of ethical concern.

Yeah, I have heard that refrred to as the 'Ick factor'. The same thing that makes people freak out over genetically engineered foods.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Sperm donors often receive some compensation. I don't see any reason to treat egg donors differently.

I don't see why the identity of the donors of the eggs matters as long as the eggs were donated voluntarily. If the claim is being made that the assistants were being pressured to donate their eggs, either explicitly or implicitly, I could see that as an ethical issue.

The partial face transplant is a wonderful thing. I'm not at all impressed by the naysayers.

I haven't heard any allegations of pressure. I agree it WOULD be unethical in that case, though.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, I have heard that refrred to as the 'Ick factor'. The same thing that makes people freak out over genetically engineered foods.

They've seen one too many 50's sci-fi movies.

 

[Meadmaker]

(I put this here because ethics is a branch of philosophy. I won't whine if the mods move it though)

A couple of scientific ethical 'controveries' that have surfaced lately puzzle me. The first concerns the donation of eggs to South Korean stem cell researchers. Apparently, some people consider it unethical that he paid money to women to donate their eggs and others take issue with the fact that some of the eggs were donated by his assistants. Why is this unethical? I have never heard a good reason given why this is bad.

The egg donation process is not trivial. It involves surgery. It forces women to take drugs that alter their normal body chemistry and function. It contains some degree of risk.

So, the ethical concern is that we are putting money in front of someone and asking them to risk life or health in exchange for that money.

I hadn't heard ethical complaints about the donated eggs. I can't see that as a problem, unless there was a suspicion that their jobs might depend on the egg donation procedure.

 

[Melendwyr]

So, the ethical concern is that we are putting money in front of someone and asking them to risk life or health in exchange for that money.

As opposed to all of the other times we ask people to exchange life and health for money.

Should we instead demand that the subjects donate their eggs for free, out of pure charity? Is that more ethical than giving them some recompense for their risk?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

So, the ethical concern is that we are putting money in front of someone and asking them to risk life or health in exchange for that money.

Okay, but as long as the women are informed of the amount of risk I still don't see a problem with it. There are people take informed risks in exchange for money every day (i.e police, fire fighters, military), so that isn't a problem in and of itself. If the scientist needs the eggs and the woman needs the money, I don't see a problem with exchanging one for the other. If they were misled as to how much risk there is, THEN there would be a problem, but the ethical problem would be with the lie, not with the idea of selling eggs itself.

 

[Floyt]

The ethical concern would be in letting it become commonplace enough so that there is some social pressure to go that way to, e.g., pay off debts. It's subtle pressure, but pressure nonetheless, and unlike legal pressure I suppose it can slide into place very gradually.

 

[wolfgirl]

The other ethical controversy concerns the recent face transplant preformed by French doctors. The ethical concerns swirl around the facts that the patient will have to take immunosuppresant drugs for the rest of her life for what amounts to a cosmetic operation and certain psychological ramifications regarding identity. The first I can kind of understand (though I don't agree with the opposition). However this wasn't some mere nose job or tummy tuck, the woman had her face ripped off by a dog, and had trouble eating or breathing normally not to mention the psychological issues. The second concern is just silly in my view. Yeah the transplant changed her face, but so did having her original face ripped off by a dog. I don't get the 'unethicalness' of the operation.?

I, too, was quite confused by the ethical complaints about the face transplant. I even asked my husband what the controversy was about, fearing I had missed some facet or misunderstood something.

It's not like she just wanted a prettier face. She had no face.

And it's not like that stupid movie Face Off where John Travolta and Nicolas Cage had their faces switched. You would still have the same hair, eyes, voice, underlying skeletal structure, etc. It's not like she's going to look just like the donor. She won't look like her old self, either, but she'll look a darn sight better than she does without a face at all.

Where's the controversy?

 

[epepke]

So, the ethical concern is that we are putting money in front of someone and asking them to risk life or health in exchange for that money.

Which, of course, people do all the time. Garbagemen, firefighters, and soldiers are all offered money in exchange for putting their life and health on the line. If you live in a house with a roof, someone has been paid for a shorter lifespan to put it on.

 

[Floyt]

Which, of course, people do all the time. Garbagemen, firefighters, and soldiers are all offered money in exchange for putting their life and health on the line. If you live in a house with a roof, someone has been paid for a shorter lifespan to put it on.

Would you put that on the same level as selling parts of your body? It's not as if, by displaying superior skill on your part, you could lower the risk or the ameliorate the outcome of such a deal. Which is basically what people in dangerous professions do: gamble their own abilities against a risk or penalty.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Would you put that on the same level as selling parts of your body? It's not as if, by displaying superior skill on your part, you could lower the risk or the ameliorate the outcome of such a deal. Which is basically what people in dangerous professions do: gamble their own abilities against a risk or penalty.

But why is selling parts of your body in itself a bad thing, provided you know the risk? Further, why is selling them a bad thing but donating them for free not?

 

[Meadmaker]

The ethical concern would be in letting it become commonplace enough so that there is some social pressure to go that way to, e.g., pay off debts. It's subtle pressure, but pressure nonetheless, and unlike legal pressure I suppose it can slide into place very gradually.

As I understand it, that's basically it. I don't have a big problem with it, myself, but that's the concern. Of course, some people have a problem with the whole concept of stem cell research, and this just adds to their concern.

Does the process involve deliberately fertilizing an egg, knowing it will be destroyed? That would be a different ethical problem, for some people, and the money would just make it seem worse in their eyes.