Organ Harvesting

[spockman]

Here is the scenario. Someone has developed a process by which a human embryo can be eugenically altered to stunt the growth of the brain. The process is so extensive that both the limbic and neocortexal systems are practically non-existant leaving only the stem of the brain and the most basic of neural functions. These DNA altered subjects live on extensive life support and have various parts taken from them one at a time as needed until they cease to function. Is this wrong? If you answer no, you will obviously answer 'no' to scenario 2, as well. But if you answered 'yes, it is wrong' then consider a slightly different situation. There is a way to synthesize both sperm and egg. Human bodies can be grown completely artificially and the DNA of the subjects can be programmed from the first on-set of life. However, everything aside from the brain and reproductive system is completely identical to a typical human. Organs, blood cells, everything. (Although the reproductive organs all grow, the subjects are celebate. Sperm and egg do not grow.) But the brain in our test tube fella' is even less developed than the first person. In fact, even the brain stem is almost non-existant. Only the necessary nerve endings and brain-to-spinal-chord connective tissue really grows. Instead, the almost non-existant brain stem connects to a computer which the responsibility of body maintenance is relegated to. So all significant mental stimuli are computer signals. Is the second scenario a moral way to organ harvest?

[no-Name]

If we actually need the organs, then I wouldn't be opposed to this. good thread, by the way. strike that, it's a bad thread now.

[spockman]

If we actually need the organs, then I wouldn't be opposed to this. good thread, by the way. So if it is just some rich dude who wants new skin to extend his days of youth, then you would be against it? Oh, and thanks.

[no-Name]

So if it is just some rich dude who wants new skin to extend his days of youth, then you would be against it? Oh, and thanks. Hmm. See this is where it gets a little more specific. In the same way that I think plastic surgery wastes time and money and resources, this would as well. If by the time that we invent an ethical (as described in your post) organ manufactoring, and we also have unlimited energy and resources, I don't see any obvious reasons why that would be bad. Pretty damn gross, but not bad, ethically.

[Maria92]

Yeah, basically what nN said. I view human life as the sum of its parts, and that includes the all-important functioning brain. Without that, people are no more than meat with eyes. You've removed the organism level of organization, leaving behind organ systems. The plus side of this is that an identical or near-identical genetic match could be made, minimizing the chances the organs will be rejected, and possibly removing the need to take immunity suppressing drugs for the rest of one's life. That said, the amount of work that would go into growing and caring for another almost-human would probably be less economically feasible than growing new organs from stem cells. In some ways, it would likely be easier to simply stop aging than to put in place the technology and infrastructure to do this on a wide scale. Telomerase is an enzyme that holds much promise in life prolongation.

[Xei]

This is an extremely interesting question, thank you for contributing this to the forums. I suppose if you do not object to growing organs, which I can really see no valid reason to object to, you cannot object to this. I'm really not sure if a 'potential human' has rights. We encounter potential humans every day when we decide whether or not to have unprotected sex. Does this make constant sex an absolute moral obligation? Though if would be nice if it were, no, I don't think it does. I think if anything there is a moral obligation for society as a whole to create a sustainable number of beings... in which case turning all potential humans into real humans is not moral. In fact, as it risks destabilising the population and causing a fall in humans further down the line, it would seem kind of immoral. An interested related question is that of in vitro meat. Is this moral? Would vegetarians find this moral?

[Black_Eagle]

As far as I'm concerned, so long as no brain parts but the brain stem are in tact, it is only a mere shell of a human. Although, it would probably be best to figure out how to snip out the need for a brain stem as well just to shut up some of the naysayers.

[Photolysis]

I agree with Xei that I don't think potential humans should have any rights. Assuming the embryo can't suffer, I think it's fine. Though ideally another technology would be developed which eliminates the problem entirely. An interested related question is that of in vitro meat. Is this moral? Would vegetarians find this moral? I believe some vegetarians are interested in this when I last read about the subject, but it will be interesting to hear from anyone here. I consider it perfectly moral myself (as a non-vegetarian).

[Xei]

The weird thing is, ignoring the fact that in vitro meat would probably be cheaper, healthier, more sustainable, and of an arbitrarily high quality once the technology is perfected, I would actually consider it to be less moral than farming animals. My reasoning is that, if there is no difference, I'd rather have a million cows alive than zero. They have what I'd imagine are relatively suffering free, calm, enjoyable lives. Again, it's weird because not creating potential cows does not seem like an immoral act... and again, the coherent position seems to be that one should create the maximum number sustainably allowed by the circumstances (utilitarianism, I suppose).

[Photolysis]

Hmm, that's an interesting, if seemingly unusual stance to take. I can sort of understand being a fan of the idea of "some life is better than none", but to assign that a moral value seems extremely odd. And as you point out, somewhat add odds with your position on creating life.

[CXIV]

It is a perfectly acceptable way to harvest organs. I see nothing wrong with it. I may not be a moralist with nothing better to do than protest shit, but I still see nothing wrong with it.

[ThePreserver]

I've heard of studies to "grow" organs using the DNA of an individual, and I think it's perfectly fine to grow an organ for someone who needs it to survive, as long as it is independent from any sort of "conscious" neural activity, if possible. There is a point where it crosses the line in my mind, which would be an actual cloned human being being used as an organ farm.