Where Bioethics Stands in Relation to Advances in the Life Sciences
by Katsumasa Imai
Human organ transplants are being performed all over the world, and physicians in Europe and North America routinely make judgments to determine brain death for this purpose. Human embryonic stem cell research and the use of cloning technology to replicate animals have already been under way for about a decade, and the human genome was sequenced and mapped early in the new century. The rapid advances in the life sciences that started in the mid-twentieth century are now changing the world and the future of humankind. Of course, it cannot be denied that this kind of research and technology has the potential to make a large contribution to human happiness.
However, there are two sides to every coin, and every phenomenon has different aspects. Just as nuclear energy is used not only to generate electricity but also to make nuclear weapons, developments in the life sciences also combine positive and negative potential.
For example, in the case of determining brain death to allow organ transplants, there remains some doubt as to whether a determination of brain death really means the person is truly dead, and so removing organs from a brain-dead patient might be considered murder. There is also the problem of buying and selling organs, and there are doubts about any guarantee against the use of cloning technology on humans in future. Also, while the use of embryonic stem cells can make a significant contribution to regenerative and genetic therapies, the potential for massive profit-making from these procedures also gives rise to ethical problems relating to the possible use of human cells as commodities for generating financial profits. Similarly, the positive contribution to genetic therapies made by sequencing the human genome is overshadowed by the fear that eugenic notions will lead to elective abortion based on prenatal genetic diagnoses and discrimination against people with pathological genetic traits.
Japanese Buddhism started addressing some of the points raised by these bioethical issues in the 1980s, and individual religious organizations have published various opinion statements. Rissho Kosei-kai has also submitted opinion statements about organ transplants and other documents to the Japanese government and members of the national Diet on several occasions. Japan's various religious communities and denominations are working together through councils and other channels to share information and react to the publication of new research results. However, the truth of the matter is that religions have so far found it impossible to sufficiently fulfill their proper role with respect to the rapid progress and developments in medicine and other sciences.
Does this have to be the fundamental relationship between science and religion? To search for the unknown and discover scientific facts are the role and mission of medicine and other sciences. The role religion is expected to play here is one of providing basic principles that lead people to achieve true happiness and of giving medicine and other sciences guidance as to the proper direction in which they should go. However, religion is hard pressed even to merely identify the important points in the ethical problems being posed one after the other by medicine and other sciences. In this sense, science and religion can be likened to the accelerator and brakes of an automobile. Is it really in our best interest to just keep on accelerating?
In Christianity, most of the ethical problems being posed by the life sciences are likely to be understood as falling into the domain of God's will. In Buddhism, they relate to the core doctrine of overcoming old age, sickness, and death. In a nutshell, Buddhism teaches that controlling your desires will allow you to overcome the most harrowing experiences of life--old age, sickness, and death--and attain peace of mind and true happiness. From a Buddhist standpoint, the overly rapid developments in the life sciences seem directed instead toward inflaming, and then fulfilling, various human desires.
Of course, most medical practitioners are dedicated to bringing happiness to humankind by means of medical and scientific developments, and they may find great joy in doing so. However, rapid advances in the life sciences have both light and dark aspects, and the latter include the potential threats of turning human life into a commodity or a means to an end, and of valuing some people's lives over those of others. It seems to me that the issue in most urgent need of global action in this regard is building mechanisms to avert these threats.
|
|
Home
Copyright (C) 1997-2008 by Kosei Publishing
Co.
All rights reserved.
