Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism looks at the benefits and risks associated with genetics. One of the problems with this sort of approach is that it is impossible to know the effects of, say, GM crops. Genetically modified crops could potentially affect all farming, but how likely is this to occur? The hedonic calculus allows us to weigh up extent and certainty, but relies on us having a good idea what the extent will be and how likely the problems are to occur.
Bentham considers all sentient creatures, and therefore may have problems with using animals for pharmaceuticals or to grow human organs. Singer would want to consider the interests of animals alongside humans. If it were simply a case of a single pig dying to save a human life, Singer is likely to value the human far more than the pig, as the human has far more and greater interests. However, many of these technologies involve harming a much larger number of animals, which would be a concern for Singer.
Kant's Ethical Theory
Kant takes a very different approach from utilitarianism. Kant's theory deals in absolute rules. Rather than asking what the benefits of embryonic stem-cell research might be, he would ask whether there was anything in principle wrong with such research. Could you will that embryonic stem-cell research became a universal law? If it was, it could mean that you had been experimented on instead of being implanted. This is contrary to the will - an imperfect duty. Some Kantians disagree, as they do not see the embryo as a 'potential person' yet. See a detailed sample answer to an exam question.
Kant would be happy with xenotransplantation (using animals to grow organs for humans) as long as there were no risks to humans. Animals have no intrinsic value for Kant as they are not rational. Put another way, to ask "Would you will that you be used to grow organs for humans if you were a pig?" would make no sense as pigs aren't capable of willing this at all.
Natural Law
Genetic Engineering at first seems to run contrary to Natural Law. Natural Law is based on the principle that God designed the world. Genetic Engineering involves tampering with or changing the way the world is. However, we need to be cautious here. All of medicine involves changing the way the world is in some way. The real question is whether a therapy or procedure is intended to allow an organ or part of the body to fulfil its purpose, or to carry out some other purpose.
- Natural Law would therefore be against enhancement genetic engineering, but may be happy with somatic-cell therapies that corrected disorders.
- Natural Law may be against using animals to produce pharmaceuticals or to grow organs for transplant as this runs contrary to their God-given purpose. This isn't clear cut. Most Natural Law theologians tend to see animals as lower beings and accept that they may be used to, for example, feed humans. I don't know of any Natural Law theologians who are against the use of animals to test pharmaceuticals, which is clearly not what they were designed for. The justification may be that one of the primary precepts of Aquinas' Natural Law Theory is to protect and preserve human life, in which case 'pharming' and xenotransplantation would be seen as acceptable.
- Natural Law may well support GM Foods. We mustn't get confused between natural and artificial with this theory. Natural Law has no problem with artificial limbs, synthetic fibres etc. as they help humans fulfil their purpose. The real question is, will GM food be better at feeding the world? Potentially, modifying food to increase yield could reduce costs, feeding more people in Africa and reducing human suffering. The concerns from a Natural Law point of view would therefore be the unknown effects (will it harm humans - contrary to one of the primary precepts), and the uneven distribution of knowledge (already western companies are patenting genes and charging developing countries to use them).
Situation Ethics
Situation Ethics instructs us to love. It is a theory concerned with humans (one of the four Ps is Personalism). Therefore situationists would be more than happy to use animals to grow organs or pharmaceuticals. The real question with these therapies is: is it Pragmatic (another of the four Ps). Do xenotransplantation and 'pharming' work? There is good evidence to suggest they do work very successfully, so Situation Ethics would support them.
What about human genetic engineering? Gene therapies that are somatic (in one person's body [soma]) would doubtless be seen as a loving alternative to letting someone suffer and die. Germ-line therapies are more problematic, as they may affect many future generations, and Situation Ethics is teleological, concerned with outcomes. However, situation ethics is Relativist (pRelativism is another of the easy-to-remember four Ps...). It may be too risky as a general rule to make changes to a germ-line, but situation ethics is happy to 'throw away [its] principles and do the right thing' - the rules are only guidelines and the right course of action is relative to the particular circumstances.
It is more difficult to say where situation ethics would stand with enhancement gene therapies. A situationist is likely to argue that the money could be better spent on those who are sick (this would certainly be more loving), but there are no absolutes here. In special individual cases, the most loving thing to do may be enhancement gene therapy.
Virtue Ethics
Virtue Ethics is never easy to apply to concrete, complex ethical dilemmas. Ethicists, and doctors, should be habitually kind, courageous, temperate etc., which may lead to right decisions made in difficult cases. Aristotle also prized wisdom above all else, and informed debate may well be helpful in some of these very difficult areas. Justice was one of the cardinal virtues, so new therapies would have to be fair - available to the wealthy and poor alike, rather than expensive enhancement therapies for those with money while the poor die of treatable conditions due to lack of funding.
MacIntyre's Virtue Ethics is relativist, which many ethics students don't like. Aristotle's theory may be difficult to apply, but my students are generally impressed with it, agreeing that we should all strive to be courageous (but not foolhardy), kind etc. However, MacIntyre's approach to ethics can be very useful here. We have new technologies, and no agreed ethical principles to help direct our actions. MacIntyre starts by looking at the context. For example, how have animals been used in the farming industry? What principles have been applied? What about in medical testing? Do these principles carry across to xenotransplantation? MacIntyre may come to the conclusion that xenotransplantation would work in America and Europe, but would not be appropriate for countries with predominantly pagan belief systems where people may feel they have spirits from animals in them if the organ grew in an animal. What decision would you reach about growing a human heart in a pig for a Jewish patient?
This may seem an unusual way of deciding what is ethical. MacIntyre says you must understand the context, and that what may be valued in one society may not be in another.
