FINAL EXAM THEO 353.

Document Content and Description Below

FINAL EXAM THEO 353 review lesson 1-12 Lesson 1 - What does Theo contribute to bio ethics?  Religious traditions emerge out of a response to a profound experience of encounter with something m ... ore than our mere humanist (our transcendent, or ground of human being)  We are concerned with deeper value and meaning (soul - death of a love one - serious illness - birth of a child  religion is the pursuit of ultimate concern and ultimate mean, religions moves us to ask questions about value and meaning, as well the problem with evil  talks about meaning and value, and raises questions on emerging sciences and technology, that gave birth to bioethics - human dignity - questions about meaning of suffering - biological determinism and the problem of freedom - what it means to be human - common good – recognizing human solidarity and social, moral imperative to promote the common good (ethics is about the good and that we build with other,  interconnection between common good and the dignity of the human person. (dignity of human person is contingent on human communities, Christian teaching steams from theory of justice, humanity essential relatedness) Lesson 2 - Tools of analysis in ethical deliberation  Social structure/ 3 levels of good  They help analyze issues, and understand how different ways of thinking about an issue can raise different questions and concerns. In bioethics, it is these concerns that have to be raised and dealt with. Social strictures  Linkages among the acts of meaning, that recur time and again  Moral knowledge is always social because it is knowledge of how we live together (all together – social living, which are patterns (activities that we engage that follow an order or sequence) and operations (actual skills involved in the activities) Three meaning of the word Good Particular good  good that satisfies an individual desire or personal interest (good for me to eat healthy ), only have to do with what is good for me – FIRST LEVEL GOOD - Satisfaction of personal desire or interest Good of order  Accountability to a wider social order that transcends personal desire (personal desire conflict at times – obligation to live in such a manner that respects the rights of others)  establish social structures that allow us to respect values of others, and achieve goods that none of us could attain on our own – SECOND LEVEL GOOD - Implies an accountability to a wider order that transcends persona desire Terminal value  becoming aware of the unjust issues in society, which leads to third level, the good calls for a critical evaluation of social orders within wider, more universal horizons of historical progress or decline  evaluating social structures with wider standards – THIRD LEVEL OF GOOD - Calls for a critical evaluation of social orders themselves Lesson 3 - Theological and ethical reflection  The good is always concrete, it is not something waiting to be found in some future insight  One might consider ART against the framework of three levels of the good to understand the potential good and the potential harm  ART is a means to fulfilling this good at the first level (having both egg and sperm donors so that child is not genetically related to either, but will still be their child to nurture and raise  The good of society in general is promoted by the importance of reproduction, of bringing children into the world who will grow into good citizens  Does the scientists control undermine the dignity and freedom of women?  medicalization of pregnancy and childbirth can and does objectify women and children  the experience of pregnancy and child birth move into the arenas of laboratories, business transactions and science  Third level values;  is a just society obligated to help people overcome infertility?  Is ART a right to which all are due or does it drain medical resources that could be used to address more pressing and vital needs  Questions concerning ART do not only operate at the level of individual choice, a just society requires; a consideration of ART in the context of the common good  pushing our analysis to understand how the good of the individual and the community can be served Lesson 4 - Research ethics boards and scales of values 1. Avoid harm  REB’s exist because  Very real harm was done and needs to be undone  Human beings suffered at the hands of scientific research  A basic lack of trust or a suspicion of the whole area of research involving human subjects  Their existence ensures that will not happen again and so contributing to the slow reversal of the decline 2. Promoting benefit  They are concerned with promoting something good  Advancing knowledge about health and diseases  Promoting human flourishing - Basically, promoting the good for all (researchers, research subject, and society  The correct decision is not some predetermined solution waiting to be found, the correct decisions emerges through the ethical deliberation itself,  through discussing and considering each research protocol,  able to identity and create the human good through the activity or deciding among different courses of action - it is at the level of personal and ultimate values that a theological reflection concerns itself when reflecting on research involving human subjects  the dignity of the human person is the central and overriding concern in research involving human subjects – human beings are more physical entities, they are beings whose existence encompasses the wholeness of body and spirit - this is the underlying malaise that leads to the abuse in research involving human subjects  the research subjects are vulnerable persons, mentally or physically disabled, marginalized  the basis of ever document dealing with research involving human subjects is the recognition of the existence of an intrinsic sense of human dignity of being somebody rather than nobody - we recognize the problem of evil that is  the abuses and disregard for human dignity  the mistakes and set-backs that continue to appear in cases of research involving human subjects Lesson 5 - Organ donation, Human dignity and Common good  Human dignity  To say what dignity is would be to describe the fundamental meaning of being human  the value or worth of human life and moral status of individuals – human dignity derives its fundamental meaning from the dynamic network of divine-human personal relations (source of human dignity is the human-divine relationship)  human beings are constituted by their relationships  human body – persons are no longer treated as intrinsically valuable in and if themselves  Moving in this direction will further marginalize the poor, already bear the burden of the underground markets where body parts are bought and sold  Common good  Common good is fashioned by all, sets the framework for meeting the requirements of all and when it is functioning well, sustains a high degree of liberty for all  there is a good that none of us can achieve on our own – we have to work together  We are responsible for the common good and live this responsibility by evaluating the impact our actions have on others and on social structure – the common good here is contributing to the promotion and protection of human dignity Lesson 6 - Ethical analysis (scale of values)  what are the values shaping decisions about testing?  goal is to attempt a systematic ordering of the ethical questions about genetic testing (this helps grasp importance of reflecting on a variety of voices and concerns, at different levels and with different underlying values the concern  value is a concrete notion; question of value emerges when faced with concrete decisions  value to that which we intent when we ask ourselves  is this good?  Is this right?  5 types of values  vital  expresses life itself  concerned with survival  social  emerge from the desire to order our world  shape (social/political/economic order)  cultural  concerned with the meaning of our lives (discovered, expressed)  personal  personal integrity (attentiveness, intelligence, reasonableness, responsibility)  emerges from the capacity to experience our world and say something about it  ultimate  surface when faced with limit situations, values are articulated in concern for ultimate meaning and value  evidenced in human propensity to grasp meaning beyond ordinary, everyday existence  three categories of who is involved 1. individuals 2. organizations 3. communities Lesson 7 - Ethical reflection  Freedom can mean freedom of scientific enquiry and the freedom of future generations  Human beings are recognized as the authors of their own life histories  Recognizes one another as autonomous person  On the quote from CS Lewish,  1 st point; the power of human beings to make their descendants what they please  here we witness a tension between the power to act (science) and the power to decide (future generations)  2 nd point; the notion of preordained  if future generations are preordained by present –day scientist, researchers and regulators, how might we understand what it is to be human?  If part of being human means the power to decide and the power to act – will future generations still be human when their forebears have already preordained who and what they will be?  What we are by nature is coming within the reach of biotechnological intervention  Human dignity: is human dignity at stake in the circumscribing of future generations by present scientific alterations  What is manufactured is no longer differentiated from what comes to be by nature, thus, the grown and the made merge in future generations because of present day decisions parents and scientist make  Natality  Capacity of being oneself  they are not so much themselves as the product of someone’s making – our being a body is subordinate to our having a body  when a child is born, we do not know who this person is or who it will become – the status of newcomer will change unless we ban the instrumentalization of human reproduction  Genetic engineering – help us reflect on the potential risks of moving forward with editing the human germline - Theological reflection  5 challenges against wider horizons (view generic technology) 1. the social role of science and technology 2. persons, meaning and culture 3. rights and the common good 4. markets, profits and patents 5. human nature  the social role of science and technology  Theological reflection asks about the problem of good and evil the possibility of idolatry and bias as these manifest in different forms in different generations  Culture s as susceptible as that of our ancestors  It is in the nature of metaphors to shape how we view something  Metaphors used to describe HGP  Mechanistic metaphors  Textual “”  Religious “”  Discovery “”  able to shape the direction of genetic research  Persons, meaning and culture  Human beings do not only operate at the level of vital values – we live values at a cultural, personal and religious level  considering the social structure of generic technology, we can break down some of the patterns that shape the structure and understand the underlying values that promote it  Problem of genetic reductionism  Reducing human beings to their genes  Persons, not genes make possible culture, art, religion, philosophy and self-conscious, other regarding love  Rights and common good  In Christian tradition, god nature is relational (the doctrine of the trinity)  tells Christian that humans are relational beings since God is relational, since we are made u in his image– core is relational, we are not individuals and then enter into relationships, we are relational prior to being individual  enter the world in relationship with our parents, our family, our community, etc. Lesson 8 - Ethical issues retaining to stem cells research  The dilemma of stem cell research 1. Stem cell research and subsequent therapy is currently providing significant benefits to humankind. There is no doubt this benefit will grows as stem cell research continues *consequence-based ethics 2. Questions concerning the status of human embryos have not been settled ** duty-based ethics  Human embryos  The k [Show More]

Last updated: 3 years ago

Preview 1 out of 10 pages