Abstract
Bioethicists often defend novel practices by drawing analogies with practices that we are already familiar with and currently tolerate. If some novel practice is less bad than some widely-accepted practice, then (it is argued) we cannot rightly reject it. Using the bioethics literature on xenotransplantation and interspecies blastocyst complementation as a case study, I show how this style of argument can go awry. The key problem is that our moral intuitions about familiar practices can be distorted by their seeming normality. When considering the ethics of emerging technologies and novel practices, we should remain open to the possibility that our moral views about familiar practices are mistaken.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For a breakdown of different forms of female genital cutting, see: (World Health Organization & UNICEF 1997).
The purpose of listing these examples is to give a sense of how frequently analogical arguments feature in bioethics. Not all of these arguments are necessarily vulnerable to each of the concerns raised below.
It should, however, be noted that the moral relevance of species membership is both controversial and widely rejected by philosophers working in animal ethics (Andrews et al. 2018, pp. 13–40).
My own work on the topic is no different; I have offered a similar argument in an earlier paper (Koplin and Savulescu 2019).
The following discussion focuses on industrial farming. Humane farming practices raise a different – and more complicated – set of ethical issues (McMahan 2008).
Indeed, some critics of male circumcision argue that these practices are closely analogous, and so should be discussed within the same ethical discourse (see e.g. Earp 2014).
References
Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation. 1996. Animal tissues into humans. London: Stationary Office.
Arora, K.S., and A.J. Jacobs. 2016. Female genital alteration: a compromise solution. Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (3): 148–154.
Bastian, B., and S. Loughnan. 2017. Resolving the meat-paradox: a motivational account of morally troublesome behavior and its maintenance. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 21 (3): 278–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316647562.
Bourret, R., E. Martinez, F. Vialla, C. Giquel, A. Thonnat-Marin, and J. De Vos. 2016. Human–animal chimeras: ethical issues about farming chimeric animals bearing human organs. Stem cell research & therapy 7 (1): 87.
Capps, B. 2017. Do Chimeras Have Minds?: The Ethics of Clinical Research on a Human-Animal Brain Model. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 26 (4): 577–591.
Caviola, L., A. Mannino, J. Savulescu, and N. Faulmüller. 2014. Cognitive biases can affect moral intuitions about cognitive enhancement. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 8: 195.
De Los Angeles, A., N. Pho, and D.E. Redmond Jr. 2018. Focus: Medical Technology: Generating Human Organs via Interspecies Chimera Formation: Advances and Barriers. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 91 (3): 333.
Derenge, S., and M.R. Bartucci. 1999. Issues surrounding xenotransplantation. AORN Journal 70 (3): 428–432.
Deschamps, J.Y., F.A. Roux, P. Saï, and E. Gouin. 2005. History of xenotransplantation. Xenotransplantation 12 (2): 91–109.
Earp, B. D. (2014). Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: should there be a separate ethical discourse? Retrieved from https://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/02/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-time-to-confront-the-double-standard/.
Graca, J., M.M. Calheiros, and A. Oliveira. 2014. Moral Disengagement in Harmful but Cherished Food Practices? An Exploration into the Case of Meat. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 27 (5): 749–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9488-9.
Gunson, D. 2012. Cognitive enhancement, analogical reasoning and social justice, 243–267. Neurotechnology: Premises, Potential and Problems.
Harari, Y. N. (2017). Homo Deus : A Brief History of Tomorrow (First U.S. edition. ed.). New York, NY: Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.
Hsiao, T. 2015. In defense of eating meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (2): 277–291.
Hsiao, T. 2017. Industrial farming is not cruel to animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (1): 37–54.
Hursthouse, R. (2011). Virtue ethics and the treatment of animals The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics.
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Xenograft Transplantation. (1996). Xenotransplantation: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy. Washington: National Academies Press (US).
Institute of Medicine Committee on Xenograft Transplantation. 1996. Xenotransplantation: science, ethics, and public policy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Koplin, J., and J. Savulescu. 2019. Time to rethink the law on part-human chimeras. Journal of Law and the Biosciences. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz005.
Koplin, J., and D. Wilkinson. 2019. Moral uncertainty and the farming of human-pig chimeras. Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (7): 440–446. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105227.
Kuhse, H., & Singer, P. (1998). What is bioethics? A historical introduction. A companion to bioethics, 3–11.
Lavazza, A., and M. Massimini. 2018. Cerebral organoids: ethical issues and consciousness assessment. Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (9): 606–610.
Levy, N. 2016. Toward a more banal neuroethics, 15. Cognitive Enhancement: Ethical and Policy Implications in International Perspectives.
Malpas, P.J. 2008. Is genetic information relevantly different from other kinds of non-genetic information in the life insurance context? Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (7): 548–551.
Manji, R.A., W. Lee, and D.K.C. Cooper. 2015. Xenograft bioprosthetic heart valves: Past, present and future. Int J Surg 23 (Pt B): 280–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.07.009.
McFall, L. 1987. Integrity. Ethics 98 (1): 5–20.
McMahan, J. 2008. Eating animals the nice way. Daedalus 137 (1): 66–76.
Melo, H., C. Brandao, G. Rego, and R. Nunes. 2001. Ethical and legal issues in xenotransplantation. Bioethics 15 (5–6): 427–442.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (1996). Animal-to-human transplants: the ethics of xenotransplantation: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Oldani, G., S. Lacotte, and C. Toso. 2019. Chimeric xenotransplantation. Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation 24 (5): 543–546.
Pullen, L.C. 2017. Xenotransplantation: Time to Get Excited? American Journal of Transplantation 17 (12): 2995–2996.
Rashid, T., T. Kobayashi, and H. Nakauchi. 2014. Revisiting the flight of Icarus: making human organs from PSCs with large animal chimeras. Cell Stem Cell 15 (4): 406–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2014.09.013.
Regan, T. 1983. The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Richards, J. R. (2012). The ethics of transplants: why careless thought costs lives: Oxford University Press.
Rivera-Lopez, E. 2006. Organ sales and moral distress. J Appl Philos 23 (1): 41–52.
Rowlands, M. (2009). Animal rights: moral theory and practice (2nd rev. ed.). Houndmills, Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shaw, D., W. Dondorp, and G. De Wert. 2018. Ethical issues surrounding the transplantation of organs from animals into humans. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics) 37 (1): 123–129.
Shaw, D., W. Dondorp, N. Geijsen, and G. de Wert. 2015. Creating human organs in chimaera pigs: an ethical source of immunocompatible organs? Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (12): 970–974. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102224.
Shi, L., Luo, X., Jiang, J., Chen, Y., Liu, C., Hu, T., Huang, J. (2019). Transgenic rhesus monkeys carrying the human MCPH1 gene copies show human-like neoteny of brain development. National Science Review.
Singer, P. 2009. Animal liberation: the definitive classic of the animal movement, Updated ed. New York: Ecco Book/Harper Perennial.
Singer, P. (2015). Animal liberation: The definitive classic of the animal movement: Open Road Media.
Smetanka, C., and D. Cooper. 2005. The ethics debate in relation to xenotransplantation. Revue Scientifique et Technique-Office International Des Épizooties 24 (1): 335.
Streiffer, R. 2005. At the edge of humanity: human stem cells, chimeras, and moral status. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (4): 347–370.
Suchy, F., T. Yamaguchi, and H. Nakauchi. 2018. iPSC-Derived Organs In Vivo: Challenges and Promise. Cell Stem Cell 22 (1): 21–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2017.12.003.
Sykes, M., A. d'Apice, and M. Sandrin. 2003. Position paper of the ethics committee of the international xenotransplantation association. Xenotransplantation 10 (3): 194–203.
Tardiff, A. 1996. Simplifying the case for vegetarianism. Social Theory and Practice 22 (3): 299–314.
Taylor, J.S. 2015. Moral repugnance, moral distress, and organ sales. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 40 (3): 312–327. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhv006.
Taylor, J. S. (2017). Stakes and kidneys: why markets in human body parts are morally imperative: Routledge.
Waltz, E. 2017. When pig organs will fly. Nature biotechnology 35 (12): 1133.
Williams, E.G. 2015. The possibility of an ongoing moral catastrophe. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (5): 971–982.
World Health Organization, & UNICEF. (1997). Female genital mutilation: a joint WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA statement. Geneva.
Yang, L., M. Guell, D. Niu, H. George, E. Lesha, D. Grishin, and G. Church. 2015. Genome-wide inactivation of porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERVs). Science 350 (6264): 1101–1104. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad1191.
Funding
JK, through his involvement with the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, received funding through from the Victorian State Government through the Operational Infrastructure Support (OIS) Program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
There are no competing interests for this paper.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koplin, J.J. ‘It’s not worse than eating them’: the limits of analogy in bioethics. Monash Bioeth. Rev. 38, 129–145 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-020-00115-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-020-00115-z