Almost everyday this week I found myself bookmarking new news stories to tell you about. Let’s jump right in.
Elon Musk’s Neuralink
“Developing ultra high bandwidth brain-machine interfaces to connect humans and computers.”
While watching this summary of the Neuralink event this week, my eyebrows admittedly raised more than a few times. I thought, “Did that monkey really just politely ask for snacks?” Skip to 1:25 in the video to see for yourself.
Note how Musk casually mentions that the monkey enjoys the demo and is “not strapped to the chair or anything”. The ethics of animal welfare here seems to be the tip of the iceberg. For an in-depth look at some of the ethics of this emerging technology, see this helpful thread from Anna Wexler, Assistant Professor in the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.
The Limits of Parental Rule: A teachable case from New Zealand
Our next article comes from the Guardian:
Yes, you read that right. Bioethics cases are known for being quite confusing and ambiguous, but the main difficulty here is in understanding how a case like this could have gone so far.
In emergencies involving a paediatric patient’s mortality, it is common and acceptable for a clinical team to defer to the child’s best interest if the guardian’s stance sits in contrast. While technically this is a type of medical paternalism, even some narrow types of paternalism can be justified.
From the Guardian, bioethicist Josephine Johnston from the University of Otago:
“Parents have a lot of decision-making authority over their child’s life – there’s a huge zone of discretion for parents to make decisions including about medical issues,” Johnston said.
“But there are limits to that, and this is one of those tragic cases where the limit has life and death consequences.”
Patients have been refusing blood transfusions over COVID vaccine concerns here in Canada, and all over the world. This can create an ethics nightmare for physicians, but it’s important to remember the difference between a capable adult refusing a transfusion for themselves, and a vulnerable four-month old baby being denied a transfusion because of his guardian(s). This is an important one to discuss in medical education.
I will do my best to stay informed of how this case from New Zealand turns out.
The Limits of Reproductive Autonomy: Is ‘too much’ choice a problem?
Another article from the Guardian this week:
A woman with Down’s syndrome [in the United Kingdom] has lost a court of appeal challenge over late-stage abortions of foetuses with certain health conditions.
Heidi Crowter, who brought the case alongside Máire Lea-Wilson, whose son Aidan also has Down’s syndrome, had argued that allowing pregnancy terminations up to birth if the foetus has the condition is discriminatory and stigmatises disabled people.
But in a ruling on Friday, three senior judges dismissed the appeal and said abortion laws were for parliament to decide.
These cases are true dilemmas. Heidi Crowter is not wrong; the mass rejection of fetuses with Down’s syndrome truly is discriminatory and stigmatises disabled people. It is difficult to argue that this is not a practice of eugenics. It seems to follow that authorities should limit and regulate abortions of fetuses with Down’s syndrome - but what does that actually look like? How might this be regulated?
An adjacent issue here is the preference for males and abortions of female fetuses around the world. I’m reminded of a Bill back in 2020 that tried to pass in the Canadian House of Commons, known as the Sex-selective Abortion Act. The aim of this bill was to amend the Criminal Code:
Whereas the Government of Canada is firmly committed to protecting and advancing human rights, both in Canada and abroad;
Whereas ending discrimination against any person on the basis of sex is a crucial part of Canada’s efforts to promote and protect human rights, as reflected in its laws and international commitments;
This sounds great so far, right?
Whereas the practice of terminating a pregnancy solely on the grounds of the genetic sex of the child values one sex over the other and is therefore a form of sex-based discrimination;
And whereas the Government of Canada believes that abortion performed on the basis of genetic sex is inconsistent with its commitment to the protection of equality rights and that the issue must be addressed by legislation;
Ah, there it is - an effort to regulate a woman’s body. In other words, an effort to make decisions for women that they may not wish for themselves.
Both the Sex-selective Abortion Act in Canada, and Heidi Crowter’s case in the United Kingdom were unsuccessful. While the sentiment of both cases is reasonable, a woman’s right to her bodily autonomy would be violated if certain abortions were impermissible. If she required her pregnancy terminated, she would have to appeal to a committee to make her case.
As you may have parsed out, many philosophical rights are in conflict here. The right of a fetus with Down’s syndrome to non-discrimination, the right of a female fetus to equality, and the right of a woman to her own bodily autonomy. To prioritize fetal rights automatically diminishes the rights of women.
Individual rights don’t exist in a vacuum; they are relative, and moving forward from a conflict of rights is a matter of prioritization. Based on the outcome of these cases in Canada and the UK, the rights of women were prioritized. In Canada, fetuses do not possess any legal rights, as a fetus does not become a human being with legal status until it is “completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.”
These cases highlight why the position is called ‘Pro-choice’ and not ‘Pro-abortion’. Some women may choose to terminate their pregnancies for reasons deemed discriminatory, but this does not mean their choice should be removed from them.
Phew, this is another dilemma that can tie my brain into a pretzel, but it’s important to remember my favourite quote from F. Scott Fitzgerald:
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
What do you think of these articles we shared today?
We would love to know your take, or better yet, submit a commentary!
Why are you receiving this newsletter?
Since Café Bioethics began in 2018, you must have subscribed to our email list to keep up with our work! We are so grateful!
Here is a new initiative we’ve come up with - the Café Bioethics Substack. I’ve personally loved subscribing to Substack newsletters about ethics, economics, and food - I thought, Café Bioethics would fit right in to the scene.
Every week, I’m going to send you stuff I think you should know about. There is so much bioethics-related content out there; I will find it and send it your way. And if you find some of this bioethics-y content - send it our way! It might make it’s way on the newsletter!
To learn more about Café Bioethics, be sure to visit our updated website! Check out our podcasts, publications, past events, and call for papers! Of course, don’t forget to say hello. :)
-Nipa