[.ca] Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge ... (ISBN 1893554554)

the right-wing extremists:
They must be giving MD's out like crackerjack prizes in a box if Leon Kass is a Dr. This man does not contribute to finding solutions and/or alleviating human suffering, he is merely a cog in Bush's right-wing extremists. He is Bush's little puppet and self important blowhard with an overinflated ego. Yes, cloning people is wrong and research on ESC's does constitute even-keeled debate, but Dr. Kass has suceeded in stifiling promising medical research to the chagrin of the patients we see day in and day out. This man was opposed to in Vitro conception 25 years ago, afraid of the assembly-line designer babies which would devaluate humanity and what it is to be human. Today, IVF has brought joy and restored hope in couples unable to naturally make babies. Kass is opposed to ESC research and Nuclear Cell transfer ( therapuetic cloning ), and will not budge in his expecting the worse dogma. This guy is a stubborn, old mule, standing, like an ass in the way of treatments for MS, SCI, ALS, Parkinson's, diabetes, etc. His response that, "adult stem cells have more validity as effective treatment", is a bunch of BS! His refusal to meet medical advocates in this field at least halfway, has divided this country and will certainly eventually lead to illegal expiriments with human cloning, like the back alley abortions years ago. I witness human suffering of all ages every day between patients and their familiies. we owe it to the sick and injured to fight for their quality of life, not putting up roadblocks with right-wing extremism politics. Sometimes it seems that some of these zealots are wack-jobs. Senator Brownback laments that he will never shake hands with Senator Orrin Hatch again because of his support for ESC research. What's up with that?!

Wonderful Introduction:
It is just as easy to dismiss Kass, now head of the President's Council for Bioethics, as a "technophobe" searching for justification. The opposite is true: while the groundwork for modern bio-deontological thought is firmly in place in the writings of the founding bioethical and environmental scholars, such writings are largely unapproachable to the layperson, analytic rather than continental in approach. Kass does just the opposite. In the spirit of CS Lewis and his "The Abolition of Man," which Kass references, Kass paints a clear and understandable picture, suitable as an introduction to the subject. However, such a statement is misleading: the book is by no means just an introduction. Simply, Kass sets out to synthesize a workable and, more importantly, objective ethos that is not simply "ivory-tower," but applicable in day-to-day functioning. That such a book is coherant and pleasurable to read is simply icing on the cake.

More of the same from Kass:
I'm really surprised that this book has received such positive reviews. Although it has some good points, 'Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity' suffers from some very serious flaws. The main focus of this book (which is actually a collection of previously published articles, so don't bother buying it if you've been keeping up with Kass's other works) is human dignity. Kass believes that all human life has an inherent dignity that transcends our scientific understanding, and that we should be wary of new technologies that would violate our dignity. This is certainly an appealing concept, but Kass fails utterly in his attempt to transform it into a coherent bioethics policy. How do we know if something violates human dignity? If it gives Kass a creepy feeling. That's the main problem with this book; although Kass talks a great deal about the importance of human dignity, he isn't interested in rational, coherent analysis of ethical issues. Kass seems to be writing primarily to fellow religious conservatives who already share his technophobic views. If you don't already agree that cloning, stem-cell research, organ sales, in vitro fertilization, euthanasia, and genetic engineering are morally repugnant, there really isn't anything in this book that would cause you to change your opinion. Although Kass toys with various philosophical justifications for his views throughout the book, in the end he always seems to base his opinions on his own visceral emotional reactions. This isn't just my opinion; Kass plainly admits it himself. On page 61 Kass criticizes conventional ethicists for their reliance on logic and failure to take human emotions into account: "Philosophical ethics today is rationalist, I would say hyper-rationalist, and I allege, unreasonably so. The dominant mode of American philosophizing today remains analytic. It concerns itself with the analysis of concepts, the evaluation of arguments and the criticism of justifications, always in search of clarity, consistency, coherence. It spends little time on what genuinely moves people to act - their motivations and passions, that is, loves and hates, hopes and fears, prides and predjuces, matters that are sometimes dismissed as nonethical or irrational because they are not simply reducable to logos. Revulsions and their correlative taboos are often overlooked; since they cannot give incontrovertible logical defenses of themselves, they tend to fall benieth the floor of ethical discourse. As a result, that discourse focuses almost exclusively on matters conceptual and logical." Yes, you read that correctly: Kass is taking a heroic stand against rationality, clarity, and coherence. Apparently Kass has forgotten that in a liberal democracy we don't generally base policy decisions on what we find creepy or unappealing. The sort of rational, analytical examination of contemporary issues in medical ethics that one would expect in a serious policy discussion is sorely lacking. Kass spends an entire chapter (which he titles 'The Wisdom of Repugnance') trying to explain why rational discourse should be put aside in favor of emotional reactions, but it isn't very convincing. Many of Kass's views are extreme, even for a conservative. Kass not only opposes controversial practices like euthanasia and human genetic engineering, but also relatively mundane things like in-vitro fertilization and organ transplants. Although the subject isn't brought up in this book, it's worth mentioning that in the past Kass has even come out against medical students dissecting human cadavers. Although 'Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity' gives a fascinating look into the mind of President Bush's head bioethics advisor, I can't recommend it to anyone looking for a serious discussion of contemporary issues in medicine or biotechnology.

Formidable Book to Disagree With!:
In his book Life, LIberty and the Defense of Dignity, Leon Kass cites a few times that 2/3rds of the population are opposed to cloning. Well, I am not one of them. There is much to disagree with here and I've done much of it. But unlike those shoddy books like Fukuyama's Our Posthuman Future, or Bill McKibben's laughable diatribe, Enough, I can disagree with Kass while still respecting him as a thinker. I even nod my head at some of his points. About half of this book deals with abstract, and half, concrete, issues. His abstract sections I was almost in total agreement with. Ethical philosophy, he writes, long ago lost track of how to deal with issues rather than theories, and real peoople rather than 'rational man' constructs. Minutia is argued on a quest to develop a consistent theory of the human right and good. BUT NO SUCH THEORY NEED TO BE CREATED! We are dealing with people who make most decisions on a hearty combination of feeling (not amenable to intellectualization) and rational thought. This is where Kass comes from. Add to this that biology has gone on so well with the reductionist program that even it has started to lose track of how to deal with the whole person. Like wantling to understand a person-in-full by studying the small minutia of their lives seperately, event-by-event; you won't get the feel of the whole person that way; she must be studied as a whole person. Biology, by breaking us down to the smallest constituent parts, don't explain us, so much as break us down to the type of bite-sized chunks they find helpful in THEIR studies. So Kass starts from the philosophy of the whole person. It is here that I feel he uses this more as an excuse to be inarticulate than a tool to REALLY examine the issue. Whether it is cloning, euthenasia, the selling of organs; he keeps taling about how our human dignity is threatened but never even attempts to explain what in the world he means. He argues that our instinctual revulsion to such processes may reflect a deeper wisdom that intellect can't articulate. But didn't we also feel revulsion to the idea of heart transplants too? Many of us feel revulsed by the very idea of surgery (going under the knife and all). Does that mean that we are expressing a 'deeper wisdom' and should not have surgury at all? I think our revulsion to biotech comes more from the thought of the unknown and our desire to hold on to the "natural order of things". Life, he tells us, is precious. Thus, we must be very careful with how we treat it. I agree. But why does it follow that we have to, then, leave birth up to the chance process that causes miscarriages, deformities, premature deaths, and...let's be honest...unwanted babies that may well grow up to abuse? And why does it follow that an old woman who is nearing a painful end to her life (with only a glimpse of hope for recovery) be made to live out her last days when she wants to end it? To be sure, there are quite a few philosophers who are just as sensitive to human dignity as Kass is who take the opposite conclusions. John Lachs ("Community of Individuals", "Relevance of Philosophy to Life") and Sidney Hook ("Convictions") are two notable examples. To close, though I agree with Kass's theoretical goals, I disagree on virually everything else. This book, though, is professionally writte, gives some (some, that is) strong points and never comes off as zeolous, abrasive, or mean-spirited toward critics. Read this - even if you don't agree with Kass.

Excellent analysis:
The rapid growth in biotechnology has seen a corresponding growth in bioethics. Unfortunately, however, many bio-ethicists have become handmaidens to Big Biotech. The twin towers of technology and money have led many to abandon genuine independent ethical reflection. There have been too few voices to assess the latest trends in biotechnology in a wise, discerning and prudent manner. One person who has done so is biologist and philosopher Leon Kass of the University of Chicago. He has spend a lifetime thinking about, and writing on, the new reproductive technologies and the challenges they present. And he has done so always with a view to the implications for human dignity and freedom. This volume, which includes articles which have appeared elsewhere, contains of wealth of information and ethical reflection on the new technologies. All the major issues are covered here: cloning and stem cell research, IVF and assisted reproductive technologies, the new genetics, euthanasia and end of life decisions, and other recent developments in biotechnology. Also carefully discussed are the hard questions: What is the moral status of the human embryo? Should there be limits to where we are heading in biology and technology? Are there areas of mystery in life that science should simply leave alone? Should autonomy, and the modern concept of human rights, trump other social and community concerns? What is the nature of medicine and what are its goals? These and other important ethical concerns are all given wise and careful consideration. Kass examines the relationship between liberal democracies and the new technologies, for example, offering incisive and cautious reflection. He notes how democracies help create a climate which makes possible the growth of science and technology. But he also warns that without a moral vision of how that technology should proceed, there is the danger of commercial interests and utopian schemes derailing the science into undemocratic ends. Indeed, since the time of the Enlightenment, an overly rationalist and utopian dream of the perfectibility of man has been pursued, often with disastrous consequences. Only by continually affirming the mystery and sacredness of life, and the dignity and wonder of man, can we prevent such coercive utopianism. However, as Kass so clearly points out, the real threat is not coercive utopianism, but well-intentioned utopianism. That is, the real dangers come from those who speak of compassion, the relief of suffering and the battle for immortality. Says Kass, "the benevolent uses of humanitarian technologies often have serious unintended and undesired consequences." The promises of the relief of all suffering and the extension of life may sound pleasing to the ears, but can in fact bring bitterness to the soul. Lost in the discussions of overcoming all problems and eradicating all unhealthiness, is the concept of the human person, of human dignity. To what end should we strive for immortality? What benefit will it be if we can live longer but not better lives? It is living well, not just living longer, that should preoccupy our minds and dreams. Yet the modern quest for perfection rarely addresses those more important concerns. Indeed, the modern rationalistic and secular march of science and technology often deliberately eschews any moral or religious considerations. The whole problem of designer babies is another outcome of the new technologies. We now have the power to determine in advance how a baby can and should live. We not only have the power to change an individual's life through the new genetics, but generations to come. And with the new genetic medicine comes the power to decide who will live and who will die. As we redefine a human being in terms of his or her genes, we run the risk of "justifying death solely for genetic sins". Genetic reductionism makes it easier, not harder, to allow experts and scientists to make the difficult choices of who is allowed to live. Eugenics, even if done with the best of intentions, is still eugenics. And the new eugenics is not so easily discerned, when it comes hidden behind a white lab coat or in an attractive fertility clinic. The pressure of science and Big Biotech to simply do whatever can be done, without asking whether it should be done, will only continue. Especially when sold in the guise of relieving suffering, or offering more lifestyle choices. We have, as Kass says, the "biomedical equivalent of a spiraling arms race" where research and technology seem to know no limits. The consequences are frightening. Kass concludes by acknowledging that he is not a Luddite, that there has been much good to come from the new technologies. But there is much to fear as well, especially if our scientific advances are not coupled with moral and spiritual growth. A perfect body, with a hole in the soul, may not be progress, but an unspeakable regress. Which way the future unfolds is an open question at this point. The future in many ways is up to us. Do we allow a future with dignity and freedom, or do we passively accept the dehumanisation and depersonalisation that comes with unbridled scientific advance? The important warnings offered here need to be read and heeded, if we are to advance on the right course.