Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:52:07.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Casuistry and the moral continuum: Evaluating animal biotechnology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Autumn Fiester
Autumn Fiester*
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Ethics and the Center for Bioethics School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania 3401 Market Street, Suite 320 Philadelphia, PA 19104-3308 [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

While the science of animal biotechnology is advancing at a rapid pace, the ethical discussion about the boundaries the public might want to set is at the most nascent stage. There is a tendency in the public debate for opponents to favor an all-out ban on the science, while proponents want to grant it carte blanche. I argue that a more nuanced position on animal biotechnology considers individual projects to be located on a moral continuum, where some are clearly morally justified, others morally impermissible, and some lie in the ethical gray-zone. To begin to define this continuum, we use the bioethical method of casuistry to analyze one case at the end of moral permissibility, and we contrast it with a case that is located at the opposite end of the moral spectrum. I advocate this approach to assessing the moral merit of biotechnology projects because of its attention to the details of individual cases — the protocols, ends, and methods — on which an accurate moral judgment necessarily rests.

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 25 , Issue 1-2 , March 2006 , pp. 15 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Jonsen, A. and Toulmin, S., The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (University of California, 1988).Google Scholar
2.Arras, J., “Getting Down to Cases: The Revival of Casuistry in Bioethics,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 1991, 16:29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Arras, , p. 33.Google Scholar
4.Arras, , p. 34.Google Scholar
5.National Research Council, Guide to the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/labrats/introduction.html.Google Scholar
6.Arras, , p. 35.Google Scholar
7.Cohen, C. and Regan, T., The Animal Rights Debate (Rowman, and Littlefield, , 2001).Google Scholar
8.Kant, I., Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Paton, H. G., translator (Harper & Row, 1956), p. 97.Google Scholar
9.Arras, , p. 34.Google Scholar
10.DeGrazia, D., “The Ethics of Animal Research: What Are the Prospects for Agreement?,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 2001, 8:23–34.Google Scholar
11.Nobis, N., “Carl Cohen's ‘Kind’ Arguments for Animal Rights and against Human Rights,” Journal of Applied Philosophy, 2004, 21(1):43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Cohen, C., “The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research,” New England Journal of Medicine, 2 October 1986, 315(14):865–870.Google Scholar
13.Bailey, L., “Candid Observations on the Current Status of Xenotransplantation,” Xenotransplantation, 2005, 12:428–433; Baertschiger, R. M. and Buhler, L. H., “Xenotransplantation Literature Update, July-August, 2005,” Xenotransplantation, 2005, 12:492–492.Google Scholar
14.Spinivasan, A., Burton, E. C., Kuehnert, M. J., et al., “Transmission of Rabies Virus From an Organ Donor to Four Transplant Recipients,” New England Journal of Medicine, 2005, 352:1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Mueller, N. J. and Fishman, J. A., “Herpes Virus Infections in Xenotransplantation: Pathogenesis and Approaches,” Xenotransplantation, 2004, 11:486.Google Scholar
16.Takeuchi, Y., Patience, C., Magre, S., et al., “Host Range and Interference Studies of Three Classes of Pig Endogenous Retrovirus,” Journal of Virology, 1998, 72:2494; Blusch, J. H., Patience, C., and Martin, U., “Pig Endogenous Retroviruses and Xenotransplantation,” Xenotransplantation, 2002, 9:242; Wood, J. C., Quinn, G., Suling, K., et al., “Identification of Exogenous Forms of Human-Tropic Porcine Endogenous Retrovirus in Minature Swine,” Journal of Virology, 2004, 78:2492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Baertschiger, et al., p. 495.Google Scholar
18.Bailey, , p. 429.Google Scholar
19.Singer, P., “Xenotransplantation and Specieism,” Transplantation Proceedings, 1992, 24:728–732.Google Scholar
20.Campaign for Responsible Transplantation, http://www.crt-online.org/.Google Scholar
21.Bailey, , p. 429.Google Scholar
22.Tucker, A., Belcher, C., Moloo, B., et al., “The Production of Transgenic Pigs for Potential Use in Clinical Xenotransplantation: Microbiological Evaluation,” Xenotransplantation, 2002, 9:191–202.Google Scholar