Somehow my summary did not post yesterday, so here is my second attempt, which will be much less amusing and intellectual seeing as how I have to be at work in 25 minutes!
During discussion, my group talked about Sandel and the ideas of performance enhancing drugs, branching off into enhancement of our abilities, talents, and intellectual capacities. According to Sandel, the idea of enhancing ourselves is presented with very fine lines, and these lines can be easily crossed.
We first touched on the idea that the chapter focuses on: Sports. Should an athlete be allowed to use PEDs in order to compete at a higher level. This was the first group discussion where we did not all agree. Some of us said "Yes, if an athlete feels the need to use these enhancements, he or she should be able to, because even with steroids, they will still have to work harder to maintain that higher level". However, others responded with "No, unless all athletes used PEDs, there would be an unfair advantage to those using them over those who don't." Sandel suggests that by using enhancements in sports, we lose the "human dimension" and the "appreciated for natural gifts". He also supports his ideas by saying that once we could genetically modify someone to be a bionic athlete, we may enjoy the sport for a while, because it would be a spectacle, but the initial interest would wear off. It would no longer be a "sport".
Even in sports, however, there is a line where some enhancements may be more of a perfection than a corruption. Sandel notes that although running shoes are an enhancement, they do more to level the playing field and take out outlying instances like someone stepping on a rock. Now everyone has less chance of something out of the ordinary happening and the race is fully based on talent and hard work.
Once the topic of sports had been discussed in detail, we moved onto the idea of enhancing things within ourselves that was not necessarily strength or physical toughness. Sandel mentions that one day we may be able to enhance our memory, our musical ability, etc. Would we, as a society, WANT to do this? Many of us in our group said no. Our main consensus was that if we enhanced our natural abilities or talents, or our childrens' abilities or talents, would we even want to be doing those things? Also, those with these enhancements may have to work harder to maintain that higher level of being, but those who do not take any will be at a distinct disadvantage to even get to that higher level of being on their own. Warburton asks Sandel about his son and whether he would allow his son to be enhanced in any way. Sandel replies that his son will just have to "practice more", because Sandel is more concerned with the appreciation that comes with hard work and the pride in natural ability than getting to wherever we want to be by manipulating ourselves in some way.
We did not have much time to discuss the idea of "Universal PEDs" with Dr. Oliver, but the idea was brought up that the only way to be fair would be to make PEDs easily accessible to everyone in order for everyone to have a chance to become anything more than what they work hard for. One issue is that because our society is already based on a social class and a socioeconomic status, unless PEDs were free, or paid for by the government, the upper/middle class would still be the ones advancing further because they would be able to afford the enhancements, and this could cause an even larger gap between classes than there already is today.
FQ: According to Sandel, what is it we lose the most of when using PEDs in sports:
A: The human dimension and the appreciation in athlete themselves, rather than their pharmacist or engineer.
I really liked our groups discussion yesterday. It was the first time we didnt all agree, so it allowed us to look at different perspectives for this topic. I thought it was interesting how we talked about how the use of PEDs and other genetic enhancements, could eventually make sports less entertaining. I also thought it was interesting how we discussed how peoples attitudes would change about sports, if genetic enhancement became possible.
ReplyDeleteOh, just from reading that post, I can tell that I really missed out not being in class yesterday for the discussion. But as I told my fellow class members last week, I am down in Atlanta for the entire week to do some medical training for my unit. It sounds like y'all are having a much more interesting time than me.
ReplyDeleteBut I am, of course, not one to be left out, so I will join the discussion here. Reading Sandel's article made me really think about how I honestly felt about the possibility of enhancing ourselves. Would I be willing to subject my body or my mind to something that could potentially better me? And I came to the conclusion, that no, I most likely would not. And the simple reasoning I have behind that, is I do not like the idea of me believing it when someone tells me I'm not good enough or I need to change myself in order to be better. I can't even imagine ever getting plastic surgery, so taking drugs to "enhance" me.. no, I don't think I could. Yes, I would be intrigued if there was suddenly some substance on the market that claimed to help with memory or could help me read faster, or something along those lines, but in the end, this is me and I have been managing just fine so far. I work hard for what I want, and I appreciate it more in the end because I feel that I honestly earned it.
But I was curious, and I did miss the discussion (I'm beginning to see that philosophy is just not the same unless you're conversing your ideas with people) so I brought up this topic with some of my fellow soldiers at lunch. And I was really surprised at the direction that our conversation went in. I began by asking how they felt about performance-enhancing drugs and just like this group stated, it was divided. We touched on many of the same topics, until one of us brought up how it would change the medical field. Since we are all medics and that would apply to us, we asked her what she meant. Imagine a world where everyone could take a pill or have a procedure that kept them from getting sick, made them stronger, made them smarter, slowed the aging process, etc. It would take time, but I think it is safe to say that most people would agree to this kind of movement.. but what about the people who didn't? They would still be "normal" and as they aged, they would need medical attention. But if the younger generations are all developing into these super-humans, there would be less emphasis on medical research and technology developments. The people who did not want to take the pill or treatment would be under pressure to and most likely shunned for not following the trend. It makes me think of that movie, Surrogates, with Bruce Willis. Instead of drugs, it was robots, but I think the principle still applies. It definitely makes you wonder what all would change.
So sorry you missed our talk, but you're doing something that will benefit not only yourself but us and I think I speak for many who say THANK YOU for doing what you do!
ReplyDeleteWe also had movie references, such as Logan's Run and Gattica. Gattica immediately came to mind for Matt and I because it has the element of genetic mutation for the "custom child". It was interesting to note that no one in the group would necessarily change any physical aspects of our children, but we were divided on the idea of an enhancement that could stop the development of Down's Syndrome. Some said "We should let our children be as they are intended to be" and others said "If there was a way to stop it, we would". So the idea of enhancements does not even apply to abilities, talents or physical attributes we already have, but could also filter into before we are even born.
I was the floater this week so I missed a lot of our group's discussion, but I would like to chime in and state my position on preventing disease.
ReplyDeleteI think that prenatal testing for genetically identifiable diseases should be done. Even if we can't cure it, it helps to know ahead of time if your child will have special needs.
As to whether or not we should cure or prevent disease or even risk of disease, isn't that the whole point of medicine? In every industry there are some aspects of treating problems but there is an even greater emphasis on preventing problems from arising in the first place.
Medicine has always sought to prevent disease, not just treat it. Vaccines are of course the first thing that comes to mind, but there are plenty of preventative measures that doctors routinely advise.
If we could prenatally detect and treat a disease like Down's Syndrome, we could effectively erase it from our species' list of things to worry about. Wasn't it considered a major accomplishment of modern medicine when polio was vanquished? Or smallpox? Both of those were not eliminated by treating symptoms, but by preventative measures.
When it comes down to it there are always improvements that can be made and it's sad that people won't be satisfies with the natural skills and talents that they were born with. The standards of the world today make it seem like we all need to change and improve things about ourselves but there will ALWAYS be improvements to be made. It's a never ending cycle. Good summary Megan!
ReplyDeleteI understand the argument of sports clubs not allowing their athletes to use PEDs because of fairness. However, what if a hypothetical sports club, say the Enhanced National Football League (ENFL), decided they wanted to be an organization that allowed athletes to use specific enhancements so long as the enhancement was not directly detrimental to their health? Would this still be wrong? Sandel is for honoring the purpose of things. I think the reason he is opposed to enhancements in sports is because it violates the purpose of that competition, but in the ENFL this would be part of the purpose. So I don't think Sandel's argument holds up in all circumstances of PEDs.
ReplyDeleteAs far as genetic engineering is concerned, once again I believe Sandel has a view of honoring the purpose of humanity. In his view genetic engineering wouldn't honor the purpose of humanity. However, what is the purpose of humanity? to live a good life? Who is to determine what the good life is for me if not myself?
DQ: Can genetic engineering lead to a better life?