Baselines for
Bioethics

Imagine that you are running for your life.

Your body is trembling with adrenaline, your heart is thudding, panic-stricken, and your breath comes in hot, quick gulps. Suddenly your pursuer sinks sharp hooks into your flesh, bringing you up short. You are picked up and dashed to the ground, breaking your back. As you writhe helplessly, your assailant begins to rip chunks out of your body. Death cannot come soon enough.

Is this a scene from a horrific slasher movie? No, this is the daily experience of prey in “Nature, red in tooth and claw” as carnivores pursue their meal. When extremists among promoters of vegetarianism declare that “Meat is Murder!” we would do well to remember the natural background against which their arguments are made.

There are well over a million carnivorous species on our world, more if you include omnivores who eat both meat and vegetation. By their teeth and their alimentary tract will you know them. We ourselves are omnivores, eating venison as naturally as we do tubers and leaves. We do not need to eat meat, of course; but it is generally a richer source of protein than is easily found in the vegetable kingdom.

What about the ethical issues, though? If we are so superior to other species, aren’t we obligated to express ourselves in a kinder, gentler, more humane manner? Unfortunately, much of our “superiority” is just an expression of being one of the top predators in the food chain. Our self-reflective intelligence is only a very recent development in our evolution, and to argue that we are free of a few million years of instinctual behaviors is anything but self-reflective.

We have generally decided that one of the ideals of civilization is to minimize pain, suffering, and death, although we tend to be self-serving as to when and toward whom we apply this ethic. Just a surely as do our chimpanzee cousins and our domestic feline companions, we sometime enjoy cruelty as if it is an entertaining game, justified largely because tormenting other animals – including our own species – is simply something that we can do. Additionally, it serves as a signal to others: Beware! We can do this to you, too!

One of the primary reasons that we have domesticated animals is simply so that we don’t have to chase after them. They’re in a supervised pasture, a coop, a barn. They are protected from other predators until we decide that it is time to use them for their labor or kill them for our food. I would argue that this is not automatically any crueler than their natural, untamed lives would be. How we treat them during that captivity, and how they meet their end, however, can be.

There are good reasons to minimize, if not eliminate, meat as part of our diet. Factory-style meat production certainly presents an ethical challenge: although it provides a cheap and easy assembly-line of meats, it depends on putting the animals in deliberately painful and unhealthy conditions and using medications and hormones to keep them alive and make them extra-productive. When we eat meats derived from this process some of these chemicals build up in our bodies, adding to the witch's brew of absorbed pollutants that may destabilize our own health. And, speaking of pollution, the lakes of animal waste from this sort of livestock productions present festering bodies of danger to the public health.

Also from the health perspective, an easily available supply of meats can provide too much of a tasty thing, ingesting excess calories and saturating ourselves in fats and related circulatory-clogging organics.

Domesticated meat-production is also a rather inefficient way to produce this choice protein. It requires up to 16 pounds of vegetable protein to produce one pound of beef and 3 to 6 to make one pound of fowl; 3 to 15 pounds of water to produce the same; and 78 calories of fossil fuel to produce on pound of beef, 35 calories for one pound of pork, and 22 calories for one pound of poultry. There is more protein-laden vegetative food to go around than there is of meats.

There is also the question as to just how primitive and predatory we personally wish to be. Disregarding "animal rights activists," most people accept the seasonal rituals of hunters who exercise observational patience, go for "quick, clean kills," and eat their quarry, but disdain those who hunt for sport or trophy. The personal administration of death-dealing can change one's perspective; we have recently heard how Facebook pioneer Mark Zuckerberg is experimenting with only eating meat that he has personally killed. I suspect that if we all had to live with such constraints our meat consumption would plummet. Could I kill a fish or a fowl? Probably with not too much difficulty if I were initially chaperoned in doing so. But a mammal like a cow, goat, deer, or pig? You mean, a member of the same Class to which we belong, mammalia? Not likely unless it was a survival scenario.

There are science-fiction procedures being developed today to grow meat without having to kill a living animal that would be more environmentally-benign and potentially healthier if the nutrients could be adjusted to add vitamins and reduce fats and glycerides. While some people might call this gross, it is much less so than slicing the throats and spilling the blood of a conscious animal before hacking its corpse apart; I would order a pound and a half of vat-grown fillet without batting an eye before touring a typical slaughter house.

Meat is tasty, and there is nothing unnatural about eating it. It may be a good decision to not eat it, or al least much less than we do. But for the nonce, I am at the top of the Food Chain; someday in the next forty years I expect that I will be at the bottom, food for the bugs and worms and microbes. I don't begrudge them their meal; so I will choose that upon which I myself dine, in full awareness of my choices.

Bon Appétit

Advance Directives

Eleven years ago an idiot doctor correctly diagnosed me with Lyme disease but incorrectly treated it. As a result, the spirochetes ate a piece of my heart, and I now require a battery and a microchip to help it keep pace. Without this device I am conscious, but not much good beyond that, as weak as a kitten. Thank Ifni for modern medical technologies!

I have also undergone a number of medical procedures in the last several years including an appendectomy, hernia repair, and pacemaker replacement, and one of the newer anesthetics that has been used functions rather like a light switch; you’re conscious, then you’re not, then you are once again, with no sensation of transition and never noticing that you vanished for the last hour.

The recent deaths of several people I've known and my advancing age got me to thinking about mortality. I don’t believe in a hereafter, and the contemplation of Death used to give me the willies. However, these medication experiences have alleviated that anxiety. If the “on” switch is never flipped after having been turned “off,” well, oblivion is not half bad. Don’t Fear the Reaper.

Ah, but the process of dying is a whole different issue. Tubes, wires, indignities, fear and pain; these are not so pleasant to contemplate. Falling asleep in an easy chair after a nice glass of wine and just never waking up would be fine. But we are not given a choice, are we? In fact, even in civilized circumstances, we are not allowed a choice. There are few places where voluntary euthanasia is permitted. There is supposedly something noble about terminal suffering.

Suppose I am in my end game and circling the drain; will my pacemaker delay my departure and prolong the agony? Do I get to point to that device in my chest and say “Turn it off, Doc!” if that will hasten my death? Do I need to document this with Advance Directives? I suppose I’d best do so and not leave it to chance, but it seems ludicrous that I might need to do this. If it is my life, why can’t it be my death as well?

I suspect that as do many things, it is something that discomforts others and is given a fig-leaf of cover by religious sensibilities. No, it’s not really my life, it belongs to a Deity. Never mind that I consider that superstition. One must jump through hoops to opt out of the traditional systems and beliefs.

One only need google Karen Ann Quinlan and Terry Schiavo to recognize that the real thing to fear is other people's beliefs. Be prepared, because there will always be someone who thinks that they are deputized to act in what they decide is your best interest. Be on guard, and lay your plans somewhat beyond a simple retirement. You may be reluctant now, but you may be powerless then.

A Serious Question Regarding Social Programs

for Small-Government Conservatives

Let me immediately identify myself as a sociopolitical Progressive, although do I try to be pragmatic about it. I believe that there should be various kinds and levels of “social safety nets” available to all people, recognize that the economic investment necessary to provide them is expensive, and yes, it requires a “redistribution of wealth” just as surely as does providing for “the common defense.”

Conservatives seem alright with that when it comes to maintaining overwhelming military might, but less so when it provides for social programs. They often give the impression that they believe these public services are being given to those who are for whatever reason, undeserving. When it comes to those less worthy, well, “It’s my money, and the government has no right to it without my express consent!” In addition, “The Government is inept, and I can better handle my money to provide for myself and my family!”

I agree that remedying waste, uncovering fraud, and maintaining a reasonable degree of efficiency are eternal battles when it comes to any bureaucratic functions, especially government. But government, in my perspective, is less about breaking even than it is about providing services and marshaling efforts that can only be achieved collectively.

I believe that cooperation is every bit as important as is competition in a healthy society despite the latter value being more heavily promoted. I believe in universal healthcare, although I recognize that the sky cannot be the limit – but that’s another discussion! I believe that in any solvent society healthcare is a human right, not a privilege, meaning that if an individual or other association cannot obtain it through their own reasonable efforts, it is the government’s duty to insure that it is accessible. If it is instead a privilege, a humane conservative – there are many such - may want to make legal and economic adjustments and offer incentives to maximize an individual’s opportunity to obtain healthcare, but ultimately, it is solely up to the individual to succeed or fail in that regard. Voluntary charities may provide some relief, but assistance is not required.

For the model to which I subscribe to be functional, everyone must participate otherwise we need to pick up the cost for “freeloaders” who could have contributed but did not. If you have no insurance, and you cannot afford private pay, clinics and hospitals are required to give you service nonetheless, and I agree that this is the maximally humane thing to do. But let’s just say that the financial viability of my preferred system is my problem, and consider you, the conservative individualist, who wants no part of it. Suppose I acknowledge our differences of opinion and of preference and agree that you may “opt out” of participation in such a network. All you have to do is foreswear utilization of its benefits.

Perhaps you have obtained employment that provides a good healthcare benefit; that’s excellent, and congratulations! Maybe you have made smart investments, receive regular dividends, and your family is healthy, and you can pay sufficient premiums for a private insurance plan, or have wealth enough to write out a check directly to your doctor, clinic, or hospital. Everybody’s happy, everybody is taken care of.

But you certainly know that there are reversals of fortune. No one is buying buggy-whips anymore and your company shuts down. A line of bad speculation distorts the stock market and your portfolio is now worth pennies. Your spouse contracts a disease that is expensive to treat, or you give birth to a child with a congenital defect. What do we do now? Humanity says that we take care of you regardless of your ability to pay; but you signed a waiver that you would not use public medical resources.

What do we do? Do you agree that, life is uncertain, you made your choice and “them’s the breaks,” and you, your child, or spouse should be turned away from lifesaving services and be allowed to perhaps die, comfortably or not? Really?

That is the way of life in nature, certainly, and in less complex societies. The strong, healthy, and wealthy dominate, and the rest… are less relevant.

This controversy is of course also germane to our other great socialized program, Social Security. Grandpa wasn’t clever enough, or didn’t plan ahead sufficiently for him and Gram, Dad died early, and Mom is living with us and we’re barely getting by. It was nice knowing you, Gramp, say hi to St. Pete, willya?

Sure I’m painting a caricature here to draw out the point. What do we do? If you listen to some over-the-top bombast, “Obamacare” is the most vile and unmitigated evil that has ever been visited upon the world, maybe worse than the Holocaust. Well, what’s your alternative? Tort reform and a $2000.- medical allowance are going to solve all of the problems of rising healthcare costs, of pre-existing conditions, of chronic catastrophic illness, and of access to care? Capitalism is the greatest good, and Government is the worst evil? Do you really believe that?

But I'd settle for people staking out a position so we know what we're arguing over: is it right, or a privilege? Let’s take it from there.