Anti Aging: An Ethical Dilemma?
In New York last summer, at the historic Chautauqua Institution, Bio-ethicist Art Caplan presented a lecture on long life, cosmetic enhancement and how stem cell technology could actually combine both those fields.
Caplan argues for the moral permissibility of enhancement by refuting the arguments of a group he calls “new puritans,” who object to medical advancements on several different grounds. Persons who hold this puritanical view often disapprove of cosmetic treatments. One person in his audience had spoken of a family member getting a facelift, and a younger woman responded with harsh criticism saying, “that’s terrible. It’s unbelievable that you would do that, you should simply accept the changes as they come.”
By systematically dismissing each of these objections, Caplan presents his own argument in favor of true anti-aging, based on a theory that we could double the life-span of a human by applying the regenerative properties of stem cells to every part of the body.
In a nutshell, Caplan’s argument for embryonic stem cell research and enhancement is this: We’ve already doubled our lifespan since ancient times. There is no “natural order of things” when it comes to how long we should exist or how good we should look during that time. Stem cell technology need not come from new sources, but embryos that we already use for other purposes.
What we use to repair disease, we can also use to enhance. There can be whole body rejuvenation, including the mind, with the help of this technology. Skin, organs, hair and everything in between can be enhanced with regenerative cells. Similar things have successfully been done to small organisms. If we fund it now and conquer these frivolous (and perhaps not so frivolous) arguments, real anti aging can become a reality.
The hour-long lecture can be found in its entirety here on Minnesota Public Radio.
