These questions are and should be geared toward every issue that arises before an opinion is made. For example, consider animal testing. Is it fair to all? Not exactly, but then again animals don’t really have a say. What are the effects of the development? It could possibly cure the diseases that we thought could never be solved. Is it beneficial and not harming? It has been beneficial, but it also has harmed. Therefore, I think the ethics of biomedical technology needs to be determined on the individual issues and not the whole biomedical area.
The religious factors of biomedical technology are more apparent than anything else. Every person has their own set of beliefs. Each person formulates their own opinion on the development of science based on those beliefs. The most common fear of those with monotheistic backgrounds is whether biomedical technology is a way of trying to be God. I agree that some science has overstepped the bounds of ethical, such as human cloning. I also argue, though, that without science those who believe it’s a way of playing God wouldn’t be here to even state that opinion. Without the cures and vaccines that have been discovered through history we all would have died of smallpox, malaria, or some other fatal disease by now.
So, is biomedical technology ethical or not? Most everyone agrees that the common good is wanted. No one wants to ruin our world, just help it. The common good is decided by the debate of varying views. Mostly, we, as a society, decide what’s ethical or not. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, “Difference of opinion leads to inquiry, and inquiry to truth.” One of the conclusions I came to was it’s just how one sees it. If an issue like abortion seems so blaringly wrong then it is unethical, to you. You can’t force a human to think a certain way about biomedical technology.
An easy solution to the debate of biomedical technology is rather simple, just be informed and observant. If there is such a strong opinion on a particular issue, all the details of both sides need to be released. People need options and an opinion isn’t justified if just one side has been seen. Then society needs to wait and see which is beneficial. For example, if aiding reproduction leads to an increase in strong world leaders some people may want to consider genetic technology vital. People can’t jump on a side without seeing every angle of the issue.
In conclusion, biomedical technology and its ethics is more than just a complex system of opinions; it’s the foundation of our society. We need opposing viewpoints to carry on, otherwise everything would always be that way or this way. And because we need opposing viewpoints, people also need to realize that each issue needs its own attention. Don’t mix your opinion of organ transplant in with cloning. Ethics are decided on a singular problem that is laid before. Therefore, I think biomedical technology has its highs and lows and everything in between. We need it, but we’re afraid of it. Never will it be one or the other.
Cox, Paul M. “Biomedical Ethics.” Leadership U. May- June 1990. International School of Theology. 23 Sept. 2002 McCuen, Gary E. Hi-tech Babies. Wisconsin: GEM Publications, Inc., 1990.