Application of ethical principles changing, biomedical ethicist insists

WACO—At least three factors increasingly will shape applied biomedical ethics in the 21st century—globalization, transformative new scientific advances and recognition of human limitation and finitude, according to Baruch Brody, director of the Center for Medical Ethics and Public Policy at Baylor College of Medicine .

“I believe ethical principles are universally true and hold for all people at all times. I reject any form of ethical relativism. However, the application of these universal principles changes,” said Brody, who serves both as a biomedical ethic professor at Baylor College of Medicine and as a professor of humanities in the philosophy department at Rice University.

Brody spoke Jan. 19 at Baylor University in Waco at a presidential symposium—one in a series marking the first year of Ken Starr’s time as president of the Baptist-affiliated school.

Global communication, international commerce and ease of travel affect how ethical decisions about scientific research and medical treatment are made, he observed. Distribution of resources, limits placed on research by one nation but not by other countries and conflicting cultural standards all present challenges—as well as the simple question of which country bears the cost of research and development.

“How do we share God’s single world with others who are equally his children?” he asked.

Scientific advances growing out of a fuller understanding of human genetic composition also present ethical questions, whether regarding early diagnosis and treatment of disease at the cellular level or related to the potential for regenerative medicine, where natural biological processes are used to replace damaged tissue, he noted.

“If we are stewards of our bodies, what are the moral obligations to test” for a genetic disposition toward specific diseases, such as Huntington’s and Alzheimer’s, he asked. “What is the physician’s responsibility? Should patients have to opt out of genetic testing? Or should they have to opt in?”

Finally, life-altering scientific advances underscore the need for humility—“recognition of human limitations and our inevitable finitude,” Brody said.

For example, as medical science offers the potential to extend life, people must wrestle with questions about what gives life meaning, he said. Likewise, they must count the cost.

“New medical advances almost always carry with them greater medical expenditures,” he said. “On the one hand, we value human life and want it prolonged and improved. On the other hand, we do not have an infinite pool of resources.”

While ethical people recognize the preciousness of human life as a moral value, they also seek to balance it with other values, he noted.

“As we hold to unchanging universally valid principles, factors such as these may cause us to adopt a more nuanced understanding and application of our values,” Brody said.