Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
ENLARGE
By Ed Iverson
Top bioethicists are debating PVS. Bioethics is a branch of philosophy responsible for studying the knotty issues of what is right and what is wrong in the field of medicine. Many times these are life-and-death issues like when to "pull the plug," when to administer a new treatment that carries a high risk or the removal and transplanting of vital organs.
Top bioethicists are debating PVS. Bioethics is a branch of philosophy responsible for studying the knotty issues of what is right and what is wrong in the field of medicine. Many times these are life-and-death issues like when to "pull the plug," when to administer a new treatment that carries a high risk or the removal and transplanting of vital organs.
So what is PVS? PVS stands for persistent vegetative state. It is the medical terminology used when patients do not respond to any stimulus and there is a non-responsive brain pattern.
Recent articles in the "Journal of Medical Ethics" have gone so far as to call for designating someone in this condition as "dead," saying their cognitive impairments justify treating them as cadavers. In response, Dr. John Shea writes that it would never be ethically or morally acceptable to use a living human being for medical research without their permission, regardless of their level of cognitive function. He goes on to say, "A person who has PVS is not dead! If you claim to respect the sacredness of human life, you can't use a human person for medical experimentation - that would be grossly immoral."
Recent articles in the "Journal of Medical Ethics" have gone so far as to call for designating someone in this condition as "dead," saying their cognitive impairments justify treating them as cadavers. In response, Dr. John Shea writes that it would never be ethically or morally acceptable to use a living human being for medical research without their permission, regardless of their level of cognitive function. He goes on to say, "A person who has PVS is not dead! If you claim to respect the sacredness of human life, you can't use a human person for medical experimentation - that would be grossly immoral."
Dr. Steven Curry from the University of Melbourne in Australia defends medical experimentation on PVS patients regardless of prior consent. While expressing doubts (!) that the public would willingly accept designating PVS patients as dead, he thinks science is justified in using them in the same way as cadavers. If Curry had his way, he would run medical experiments such as animal organ transplants on PVS patients. He wants a convenient end-run around laws regulating medical experimentation on living human beings.
Oh, those pesky ethical prohibitions! If not for ethical prohibitions, science could ascend to the throne! Mankind could be freed from all manner of superstitions. Accelerated evolution of the human species might be possible. "Superstitious" ethics hamper "promising" avenues of research. There is this PVS issue, but were it not for the troglodytes pressing their "old tired ethics," human embryos could be processed for stem cell research. Experiments could proceed with human cloning. Valuable organs could be harvested from people who had not actually died but were known to be "terminal." The supply of hearts and livers in a healthy condition would multiply astonishingly if medical science could proceed with removal before a "terminal" patient had actually died.
Oh, those pesky ethical prohibitions! If not for ethical prohibitions, science could ascend to the throne! Mankind could be freed from all manner of superstitions. Accelerated evolution of the human species might be possible. "Superstitious" ethics hamper "promising" avenues of research. There is this PVS issue, but were it not for the troglodytes pressing their "old tired ethics," human embryos could be processed for stem cell research. Experiments could proceed with human cloning. Valuable organs could be harvested from people who had not actually died but were known to be "terminal." The supply of hearts and livers in a healthy condition would multiply astonishingly if medical science could proceed with removal before a "terminal" patient had actually died.
As a matter of fact, even if it were possible for society to thus scrub away ancient ethical concerns, there is yet ample reason to refrain from using people in a persistent vegetative state as cadavers. According to Dr. Shea, little is understood about the capacity for awareness and understanding of people suffering from severe cognitive impairment. Documented cases of patients who have unexpectedly "woken up" from a supposedly permanent PVS state refute the argument that their condition is irreversible.
We are again reminded that it is never a case of ethics or no ethics. Rather, it is always a case of whose ethics. The medical scientist who is intent upon using someone with no cognitive brain function as a cadaver is expressing his ethics. He may or may not anticipate the logical conclusion of his ethics. Still, his ethics are on display. Certainly we should oppose his ethics for the practical concerns mentioned in the previous paragraph. Even more importantly, we should oppose his ethics because they lead to hideous conclusions.
Who will we next designate as not actually human? We have already consigned the unborn infant to the status of non-human. If a patient with PVS is to be treated as a cadaver, one more barrier to barbarism will have fallen. We are in danger of working our way back to the medical ethics of Josef Mengele, the medical doctor called the "Angel of Death" in the Nazi concentration camps.
We are again reminded that it is never a case of ethics or no ethics. Rather, it is always a case of whose ethics. The medical scientist who is intent upon using someone with no cognitive brain function as a cadaver is expressing his ethics. He may or may not anticipate the logical conclusion of his ethics. Still, his ethics are on display. Certainly we should oppose his ethics for the practical concerns mentioned in the previous paragraph. Even more importantly, we should oppose his ethics because they lead to hideous conclusions.
Who will we next designate as not actually human? We have already consigned the unborn infant to the status of non-human. If a patient with PVS is to be treated as a cadaver, one more barrier to barbarism will have fallen. We are in danger of working our way back to the medical ethics of Josef Mengele, the medical doctor called the "Angel of Death" in the Nazi concentration camps.
