Merrick: In two years, I will be able to cure a child's leukaemia. How many men in the world can say that?
Albert Laurent: I guess just you and God. That's the answer you want, isn't it?
* spoiler warning - go no further if you intend to see this biotech thriller - and I recommend you see it *
I received two recommendations to go rent the movie The Island. So I did. And I am glad I did.
The setting is the future. The premise of the movie is best captured in one of the scenes from the movie. Some potential clients are ushered into a futuristic, multi-media sales pitch. The clients are obviously wealthy. The prospects are watching a presentation on a large screen.
A voice softly says:
"The human organism. Unique in all the universe in its complexity. The product of three billion years of evolution. Perfect in every way except one.
Like all machines, it wears out.
For centuries, the idea of replenishing the human body has been at the forefront of science."
The film stops. The camera cuts to Dr. Merrick standing in front of the group. Merrick smiles.
"Ladies and Gentlemen. Welcome [pause] to the next generation of science."
He motions in the direction of a clear box ... with something organic and fleshy looking inside. It is hermetically sealed and environmentally controlled. It looks like a scary science project.
"The agnate.
An organic frame engineered directly into adulthood. To match the client's age.
You are looking at stage 1 of its development. Within 12 months it will be harvest ready. Providing a carrier for your baby. A second pair of lungs. Fresh skin. All genetically indistinguishable from your own.
And in compliance with eugenics laws of 2050, all our agnates are maintained in a persistent vegetative state. They never achieve consciousness. They never think, or suffer, or feel pain, joy, love, or hate.
It is a product, ladies and gentleman, in every way that matters. Not human."
Merrick's company has found a way to clone you for the purpose of harvesting organs. A fantastic idea, no? It is like having an insurance policy.
Would it be morally wrong? What if using spare parts from your clone could add sixty years to your life? It would be okay ... just as long as your clone never achieved consciousness ... right?
Many believe that consciousness is what it means to be a person. Sentience. The ability to have measurable brain activity. They have no issue at all with embryonic stem cell research because the human embryo has not reached consciousness and cannot feel anything ... like pain. Withholding food and water from Terri Schiavo gave them no moral discomfort ... after all, Terri Schiavo was already dead, in their view.
Now, let's take that moral reasoning to its logical conclusion. If we could create fully developed clones that were kept in a persistent vegetative state, then would it be murder to kill them and take their body parts? I don't see how. They never achieved consciousness. They are not a person. No rights. Like Merrick says, a product.
The reasoning holds ... if, and only if, sentience is the key ingredient to being a human person. Yet the thought repulses us ... and it should.
The thought of growing human bodies for harvesting organs seems terribly wrong ... conscious or not. It is repugnant. Yet somehow we don't get that until we see a harvesting facility with rows and rows of adult human bodies being grown in sacs.
Since human embryos don't much look like us, it is a much easier pill to swallow. But the reasoning is the same.
The truly scary part about the film is that it is within the realm of plausibility to imagine this business idea taking root in our culture. I realize we are decades (perhaps centuries) away from perfecting cloning technology to this degree. Unfortunately, the moral skids have been greased to make the case for why it would be a morally acceptable idea ... all in the name of cures and healthier lives.
A utopian fountain of youth? Or our worst Frankensteinian nightmare? It all depends ... on what it means to be human.
There was a story in our local paper not long ago about harvesting tissue from aborted fetuses for medical purposes. The newspaper being liberal, the article was composed of only two elements. First, tearful accounts from tissue recipients about how wonderful it was to be cured, and second, shrill, poorly-though out, grammatically appalling denouncements from local pastors. Absolutely no reason on either side, as planned. One woman who received retinal tissue said that she was a Christian and that she thought abortion was wrong, but said it wasn’t so bad because “part of that little baby is alive inside me”. If one were to point out to her the absurdity of this reasoning, she would probably just cry and say “You’re just being mean” or words to that effect.
The issue is this: Americans, including Christians, almost always make decisions based on emotion rather than logic. This, when combined with the moral weakness inherent in a wealthy society, make it impossible to distinguish morality from comfort. If it helps me and makes me feel good, then it’s right, UNLESS you can find somebody who can come up with an even MORE emotional account of how they are hurt by the same thing. Since we can’t find a fetus who can stand up and do this for themselves, it’s check and mate. Advocating on behalf of the fetus is an intellectual exercise, not an emotional one, so it’s doomed to fail.
Posted by: John M. | January 10, 2006 at 17:54
The truly scary part about the film is that it is within the realm of plausibility to imagine this business idea taking root in our culture.
I'd go so far as to say that the idea has already taken root in our culture. All it lacks is the technology.
I think its safe to say that cloning a non-sentient (anencephalic?) body to harvest organs is repulsive to those who already believe that sentience is not the key ingredient to being a human person.
But, just as clearly, that repulsion is not held by those who don't share that belief.
For instance, some of Robert A. Heinlein's novels include this practice. It is the heroes that do it. Peter Hamilton's recent Pandora's Star has "re-life:" the recorded personalities of people who have been killed are downloaded into force-grown clones. In contrast, the bad guys in Lois Bujold's Vorkosigan novels harvest organs from sentient victims. The practice is something of a cliche in current SF, and whether it is presented as bad depends entirely on whether or not the victim is sentient.
Pretty soon, we may be able to culture some organs in vitro, in effect, "cloning" individual organs. Problem or not?
Suppose we could grow a cluster of organs?
Suppose we could grow a body minus the head?
Suppose we could grow an entire non-sentient body?
Suppose we could grow an entire sentient body.
I would guess that most non-Christians would draw the line between the non-sentient and sentient body. I'm not sure where most Christians would draw the line.
Posted by: Nick | January 11, 2006 at 09:29
Nick,
Where do you draw the line and why? Interested in hearing your thots.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 16, 2006 at 20:14
Jeff:The truly scary part about the film is that it is within the realm of plausibility to imagine this business idea taking root in our culture.I'd like to deny this, but I can't. It wasn't all that long ago that I would have told you the idea of Americans abusing and possibly torturing prisoners seemed farfetched, and the idea that many Americans (including popular, prominent ones) would defend such practices was ridiculous.
Life routinely proves me wrong on such counts.
Posted by: tgirsch | January 18, 2006 at 17:59
You probably would not like watching "24" I am guessing.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 18, 2006 at 18:18
Why do you say that? Does the latest "24" address the "ticking bomb" nonsense?
I don't watch "24," but it doesn't have anything to do with the message of the show or any of the content. It's the fact that you have to follow it, i.e., you can't watch an episode out of order or in a vacuum. I can't be relied upon to watch the same show week-in, week-out for 24 weeks. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | January 18, 2006 at 18:29
Do what I do ... borrow a seasons worth of episodes ... grab some food ... settle in ... and go without sleep for 24 hours why you watch 24 episodes of 24 ;-)
"24" raises the ethics of torture again and again and again.
For someone who likes parsing through ethical situations, like yourself, it would be fun.
When you spoke of torture, it reminded me immediately of "24".
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 18, 2006 at 18:35
Jeff:
I thought you might be interested, but Kevin just blogged about 24 and torture.
Posted by: tgirsch | January 19, 2006 at 18:12