|
“Ethicist: a person versed in ethics or devoted to ethical ideals”
–
Webster’s New World Dictionary
I don’t use this space to ask for help unless I
am completely stumped.
Our region does not have a
medical school nor is it a hub of research. We do have a respected medical
center, so perhaps someone in the readership area can answer this: What does a
bioethicist do?
I can explain what I think they do based on
what I’ve read in the papers, just as I can say that a plumber installs and
repairs pipes, a carpenter builds things from wood, and a dentist fills teeth.
But since I’ve never had occasion to hire a bioethicist myself, my observations
are secondhand.
That said, here’s what it looks like:
Bioethicists are in the business of rationalizing any darn fool thing any doctor
or researcher has a whim to do. I doubt that’s on their business cards but
there must be some overriding principle they abide by, just as physicians swear
to “First, do no harm.” Perhaps bioethicists make a vow to “Define harm
expediently.”
I have written of efforts by bioethicists to justify human cloning,
the creation of embryos to provide organs for transplants, and euthanization of
handicapped children. Then there was the proposition that “the life of a
newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig.” Still, I’m willing to
entertain the notion that these stories were news because of their
outrageousness and don’t represent the profession as a whole.
Any explanation must enlighten me regarding a letter last month by
John A. Robertson, chairman of the ethics committee of the American Society for
Reproductive Medicine, whose policies are followed by most fertility clinics.
According to Robertson, “a program might ethically offer preimplantation genetic
diagnoses” for gender variety.
In other words, it’s OK to kill embryos of the wrong gender in order
to implant ones of the right gender.
Robertson, a University of Texas ethicist, cited a May ASRM ruling approving
some preconception sex selection services for non-medical reasons using
an experimental sperm separation technique. While he was not speaking for the
full ethics committee, the huge Center for Human Reproduction immediately
announced it would offer embryo sex selection in its New York and Chicago
clinics. ASRM plans to consider a formal policy statement in January.
In practical terms Robertson’s opinion doesn’t change much except
motive. In vitro fertilization presently involves the creation of more embryos
than will be implanted, and most are not chosen. Further, abortion is already
legal on demand for any reason, including gender selection.
Perhaps that’s the ethical justification: Everyone else is doing
it. Principles like that you could learn from a third grader.
There are some limits, apparently. Dr. Norbert Gleicher of the Center for Human
Reproduction says he will not offer the service to couples with rigid gender
stereotypes. Dr. Zev Rosenwaks, director of the Center for Reproductive
Medicine and Infertility at Cornell University, notes “Since in vitro
fertilization is not free of complications, I do not believe women should
undergo IVF for the sole purpose of sex selection.”
What I couldn’t find was anyone saying that killing embryos because of their
gender is wrong.
And that, in the final analysis, is what I want to hear. I want someone in the
bioethics business to say that something is wrong. Anything. Not risky, not
politically incorrect or less preferable. I want to hear the “W” word.
And if none of them can gag it out, I want to know how one can ignore right and
wrong in the ethics business any more than a dentist can wish away tooth decay.
© 1997- 2002 Brent Morrison
|
