This is the time when the concept of human life is subject to those who participate in medical practice. The participants are beginning to intervene in judgments from human birth to human death with the progress of medical technologies. In other words, however, the medical development forces people involved to make important choices about human existence. There are several examples of the dynamic medical changes. The first is a prenatal diagnosis. It is genetic identification of inborn characteristics at an embryo-stage. It informs parents about the child’s physical or functional possible development which includes the sex, congenital deformity or inherent disease. It sequentially allows or forces them to refuse or accept the child. In the decision, the baby can die without natural or accidental causes. Also several sperm and egg banks provide customers with the list of characteristics of donors to response to their requests. The select of characteristics is a preliminary step toward “a designer baby,” that is a baby, expected faraway future, genetically engineered according to parents’ desire. It actually “designs” the child’s biological characteristics that strongly compose the complicated identity with the environment. These are all examples of practice that provide another passible life of the naturally expected baby. It is argumentative technologies which involves desire, social value, economical status or technological problems. On the other hand, the end of human life is closer to what people can medically and conceptually choose. The typical instance is euthanasia. It is the idea that refers to the treatment to release the patient’s from him or her painful, incurable and terminal condition by letting him or her die. This idea is still under the heat discussions and debates which include many categorization, general images, religious dogmas, and ideas of suicide and rights to die. Also, the realization of patients’ rights and emergence of informed consent now allow patients to refuse the treatments even if the situation is critical. These concepts change medical relationship equal and contract-like rather than dutiful or paternalistic. The medical timing of human death is gradually becoming optional today. Such the flood of dynamic and radical changes in medical technologies and concepts critically influence the way people view themselves. The revolution does not only confuse people involved but also make them to make grave choices which literally determine human life. The way to overcome the hard process is not arbitrary answers without any consideration and dialogue. It is absolutely important for the future of medical decision and ethics how liberal and informed the participants can be.

In medical care, a decision of a patient’s life is actually dominated by practical technologies and directive concepts. Through the interdependent transition of the technologies and concepts, the way people view their life is often shocked and changed significantly. One of the typical examples is application of an artificial aspirator and the emergent of brain-centric view about death. First, the medical and legal definition of human death is traditionally the cessation of main vital functions, namely, “persistent respiration and continuing heartbeat” until the late of twentieth century (The Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School 87). However, the diffusion of a developed artificial respirator brought a radical change in the concept of human death. It sometimes enabled medical practitioners to resuscitate patients who once lost the main vital functions, and sometimes confused them by maintain the respiratory function of irrecoverable brain-dead patients. The critical element of the technology is the very ability to artificially let a patient maintain other functions by breathing. It was natural that people started to question what human death is. To revise the medical and legal definition of human death, brain death, called “irreversible coma,” was examined by the ad hoc committee of the Harvard Medical School in 1968 (85). The committee’s report influenced formal and informal conceptualization of human death. The brain death as human death gradually gained general support and acceptance. Starting with Finland that legally defined brain death as human death in 1971, the new conceptualization started to have power in the medical and legal world. However, this new idea of death causes discussions and debates when it is connected with organ transplantation. Organ transplantation has helped a patient who has serious diseases in his or her organs by transplant healthy organs from a dead body. Before a brain-dead patient, medical professionals and the patient’s family are involved in a new decision-making: To accept brain death as human death and extract organ from a brain-dead person with working vital functions, or to refuse the new concept and the extraction. Remarkably, people involved now have to decide when the patient dies. The legal standard of organ transplantation from a brain-dead person is different from the country to the country, and the argument is still continuing.

Reference

The Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School. “A Definition of Irreversible Coma.” the Journal of the American Medical Association 5 Aug. 1968: 85-88.

              The progress and emerges of medical technologies and concepts have direct impacts on human life and the way people view it. Sometimes, and more often today, they enable and force people to make a hard decision about human life and death. As long as trying to avoid unfaithful practice, through the decision making, people usually need theories, systems and frameworks that ensure their morality. When they start inevitable dialogue about the decision, they will realize diversity of ethical frameworks and be confused by the complexity and conflicts in the diversity. However, the confusion can be helped out of chaos. Actually, there is not only diversity but also university in ethical systems. All of them are derived from the same question: what should be most responded to? In other words, it determines the practice what responsibility decision makers will select. One may choose responsibility for the objective standards, and another may choose that for his or her unique relationship with the patient. The ethical diversity is simply the differences between things responded to. However, no one can make the perfect choice of responsibility because of human dilemma, which refers to individual uniqueness and equality between individuals. People are living as irreplaceable individuals in communities with irreplaceable relationship, while they are living in orderly societies with agreed objectivity, equality and justice. Notwithstanding the reality that anyone cannot always perfectly balance and cope with both human uniqueness and equality, people involved still have to exert themselves to the utmost for better understanding and liberal dialogue of ethical decision making. Not the ethical framework, but the faithful attitude and earnest process in relativistic and creative tension are the very evidence of the human morality in the incomplete decision making.

“Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s language” (Genesis 11:7).

Today, Dramatic technological progress, especially in transportation and digital communication, created a situation that individuals from diverse cultures can interact with each other much more frequently than before. It made us face with the problem of cultural differences. Culture is our beliefs, values and customs of thinking and behaving. To put the problem in other words, we are groping for an ideal multicultural society where people who think and behave based on different beliefs, values and customs can live together. However, it is impossible to complete such an ideal society as long as we are trying to fight and transcending our differences. Now, let us see the two ideas which make us violate our differences estranged from multiculturalism.

The first idea is ethnocentrism. The word was invented by William Sumner, a Social Darwinist in 19th century. “Ethnocentrism is the technical name for this view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it” (Sumner 13). If you employ ethnocentrism, you can solve the problem of cultural differences by crushing out the different cultures from your own. In other words, those who think own culture is better than other cultures will force people from different cultures to obey own beliefs, values and customs to think and behave. For example, the Age of Exploration in 19th century to the peak of imperialism in 20th century, the colonists from great power forced own language and culture on other people in colonies. That was because social-Darwinism had a great impact on colonial powers at the time and they thought that their country was culturally developed enough to educate and enlighten the other cultures. However, ethnocentrism was severely criticized by Franz Boas, American anthropologist at that time and gradually abated. He advocated cultural-relativism and tried to prompt people to evaluate culture not by outside standards but by its own standards. For his and following scholar include Margaret Mead, cultural-relativism became a mainstream. We are now thinking that we cannot put any culture in hierarchy. Then, what can we do to solve the problem of cultural differences? 

Today, on the extension of a straight line of the cultural-relativism, we can see second idea, separatism. We can call it ‘negative relativism.’ These days we can see segregation movement in Europe. In France, the current president Nicolas Sarkozy planned to expel irmmigrants legally and failed by opponents of upper house (Samuel Screen1). However, the law was rejected by 182 votes to 156. It means that nearly half of politicians were supporting the law. In German, the Chancellor Angela Merkel said “Multikulti ist Tot (‘Multicultural’ is Dead).” and required immigrants to be German (“Merkel says” Screen1). Moreover, anti-Islam politicians are rallying support in some countries in Europe (Ridgwell Screen1) and in Norway, the terrorist attacks by an anti-Muslim man deprived of about 100 lives (Harman Screen1). These actions in Europe are caught in ‘the trap of relativism.’ By relativism, we can recognize the existence of others differ from us. On the other hand, we are very likely to give up because it never erase differences and conflict between us. The difficulty of relativism is what I call ‘the trap of relativism.’ In above cases, those who are trying to exclude people from other cultures have given up and choose the idea “Different cultures, different places.” Separatism will never allow us to understand each other. We are now tracing the story of the Tower of Babel on a global scale. Is it the only one way left for us to exclude each other?

Now, we have to reconsider what is multiculturalism. It is ‘positive relativism.’ When we make up our mind to use relativism positively, the view of multicultural society has to change. It is no longer a particular goal or an ideal state to achieve but a process that people from diverse culture try to live together. The essence of positive relativism is the ever-lasting liberalization of us. In other words, positive relativism always force us to keep opening our mind to the possibilities of other beliefs, values and customs determine others’ thought and behavior. It presents us another way to live in a multicultural society. It is dialogue. Ethnocentrism and separatism fails because they throw dialogue away and try to settle the problem of cultural differences. Today, we are facing with the increasing number of the problems of cultural differences and tend to escape from difficulties, conflicts and permanent efforts live together with different cultures. For this reason, we have to start and continue communicating with each other. It must be much more difficult but much more valuable and meaningful for our future than scattering without knowing each other. Let us come together at the foot of the Tower of Babel to listening to and understand each other’s words.

References

• Sumner, W. G. Folkways: A Study of Mores, Manners, Customs and Morals. New York: Cosimo, Inc., 2007.
• Devraj, Ranjit. “’Curry Bashing’ in Oz Sours Bilateral Ties.” INTER PRESS SERVICE NERS AGENCY. 4 June 2009. 13 November 2011. <http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47095>.
• Samuel, Henry. “Sarkozy immigration plan thrown out by French senate.” The Telegraph. 4 February 2011. 13 November 2011. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8303672/Sarkozy-immigration-plan-thrown-out-by-French-senate.html>.
• “Merkel says German multicultural society has failed.” BBC. 17 October 2010. 13 November 2011. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451>.
• Harman, Danna, and the associated press. “Norway terro suspect wanted European anti-Muslim crusade.” HAARETZ.com. 24 July 2011. 13 November 2011. <http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/norway-terror-suspect-wanted-european-anti-muslim-crusade-1.375043>.

“I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overvome. What have you done to overcome him? (Nietzsche, 5)”

In 1883, Francis Galton, English scientist who was a cousin of Charles Darwin coined the word ‘Eugenics’ comes from Greek meaning “good breeding.” It is a study of good genes and improvement human species. It has exerted a great influence not only science but also on human society because it seems to tell us who is desirable and whether we are desirable or undesirable. “During the heyday of eugenics—much of the first half of the twentieth century—social prejudice often overwhelmed scientific objectivity in the human genetics” (Kevles vii). In the first half of twentieth century, as Shipman narrates, “negative eugenics” resulted in the purification policy of desirable races and the persecution of races thought to be undesirable, unfit or useless in America and Europe (Shipman 122-142). After the time of the overwhelming prejudice, it abated once under the severe criticism against stereotyping and ranking mental ability and beauty of groups of people. However, the second wave of eugenics which joins hands between health and economy. And now we have to face with the genes relevant to diseases.

Today we know more information about genes is connected with our health. Scientists found many genes which deliver resistances to diseases like malaria and disorders like Huntington’s disease. As the information about how individuals’ health likely to break down, some economic and eugenic problems which we can call “return of eugenics” Let us see two cases which have risk to let eugenic discrimination come back.

First case is about a general company’s handling the genetic information of workers. Genetic information of workers is a very useful to know adaptability to the working environment and keep them from chemicals they are not tolerant to. Also it is sometimes said that the genetic diagnosis and health check employed so far are different in degree but not in kind. However, the problem will occur when the company gives economic profits priority and begin discriminating against workers in affairs or salaries. It is the selection of economically desirable people by the company. However, achievements of workers depend not only on their genes but also their personal skills and passion for working. Also workers’ health depends not only on their genes but also their life style and the environment they live in. Therefore such a situation does not and should not make sense.

The Second case is about an insurance company’s handling genetic information of customers. An insurance company can indirectly force a customer to take genetic diagnosis by adding it into conditions with the entry. The more people may maintain their health and the less people may fall ill entry, the more profits an insurance company gets. For instance, the Department of Health in Britain allowed insurance companies to use genetic test results for assessing the risk of Huntington’s disease in 2000 (Genetics and Insurance Committee). One of the reasons an insurance and genes are not separated like that is that the difference between genetic information and other personal information is still vague today. When the genetic information determine the entrance or coverage of an insurance, the idea of welfare is lost or corrupted.

To prevent such a situation, a legal system is developing. For example, the American government put The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 into operation in 2009 (“Genetic Information,” screen 1). However, a legal preparation will not sufficiently prevent or solve the genetic problems. It is because even if the legal development succeeds to expel eugenics once again, it will come back as long as we still have values judging desirable and undesirable people. Rules can solve problems politically but cannot completely improve people’s sense of ethics. A sense of ethics is passionate, rational and liberal will to create welfare with others. Nietzsche created the word “the overman” for a person who has the will and overcomes him or herself whose mind is passive and closed against the future. Do not wait for new tragedy. It is time to be the overman to make new values for the future without negative eugenics.

References

• Nietzsche F. W. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Trans. Adrian Del Caro,Robert B.Pippin. The United States of America: Cambridge University Press, 2006
• Kevles D. J. In the name of eugenics: genetics and the uses of human heredity, fifth printing. The United States of America: Harvard University Press, 2004
• Shipman P. The evolution of racism: human differences and the use and abuse of science. The United States of America: Harvard University Press, 1994
• Genetics and Insurance Committee. Decision of the Insurance Committee Concerning the Application for Approval to use Genetic Test Results for Life Insurance Risk assessment in Huntington’s Disease. London: Department of Health, 2000
• “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008.” Genome.gov. 16 January 2011. 11 November 2011. <http://www.genome.gov/24519851>.