|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
5th
EMBL/EMBO Joint Conference 2004 |
|
|
Session IV |
|
|
| Is there anything immoral about wanting to live forever? |
|
|
|
Arthur Caplan, Professor of Bioethics, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA
Presentation
[PPT]
Most people when asked
say they would like to live longer. If not forever,
then at least a lot longer than they currently expect
to live. Not everyone thinks it is a good idea to
live longer lives. Some writers, perhaps, most notably
the bioethicist Daniel Callahan argue that the quest
to extend life is not a self-evident good. A longer
life, Callahan contends, is not necessarily a better
life. A nation of much longer lived citizens would
wind up unfairly burdening the young. Other writers,
such as the philosopher/physician Leon Kass, the
political theorist Francis Fukuyama, and the theologian
Gilbert Meilander argue that the extension of life
should not be pursued because lengthening life is
not consistent with human nature. It is 'unnatural'
to extend human lives beyond the proverbial three
score and ten that the demographers assure us is
what the average citizen of an economically developed
nation can expect. Still scientists are eagerly
pursuing research in many species that might lead
to life extension in human beings. We do not know
enough about aging to know if any of these interventions
can deliver a longer life much less immortality.
But, should this research be stopped? Are the scientists,
physicians and others working on techniques that
might lead to significantly longer life spans for
human beings engaged, as Callahan, Kass, Fukuyama
and others argue, in unethical activities? As this
presentation will show, I do not think a persuasive
case against life extension has been made. Indeed,
I maintain that research on slowing and even 'curing'
aging should have greater priority in research budgets
than it now does. |
|
|
|
|
