The recent developments in technological advancements and scientific breakthroughs have presented modern ways of doing things. One such development relates to the introduction of technology-based medical procedures, which have made it possible to achieve feats yesteryear medical scientists could only dream about. This introduction has however resulted in debates concerning whether controversial medical procedures should be allowed to play their role in society without external interference. In Lisa Belkin’s article, The Made-To-Order Savior”, the author describes how modern medical technology makes it possible to genetically modify a human being at conception so as to increase the chances of donor matching in saving children’s lives. The procedure aims to produce a perfectly matching sibling with a donor profile that can be used in bone marrow transplant. This procedure has elicited has elicited ethical controversy as the implied benefits are compared with the general societal implications. On the same level, the relationship between fundamentalism and the approaches adapted by society is explored in depth by Berry Wendell in the book “God, Science, and Imagination.” In the book, the concept of fundamentalism with regard to common societal concerns is explored. The author is concerned about the way fundamentalists of science and religion evangelize societal concerns to a point of championing the implementation of ideas and upholding of philosophies without due regard to what it means for society to take such prescriptions without asking questions. The author believes that fundamentalists seek to satisfy their own narrow pursuits and are unconcerned about the effects that their ideas have on the wider society. In both articles, the critical concept of permitting the application of controversial medical procedures is investigated. What appears to take center stage is not the beneficial or harmful effects of such medical approaches, but rather considerations based on the implied threshold for satisfying moral and social value systems. The proponents of this discourse rely on the realization that advancements in medicine have led to innovations and the development of medical procedures that have made significant strides in the research and practice of medicine. While proponents do not expressly deny these claims, discussions center on pertinent issues touching on justice and morality. Fundamentalists of science as well as of religion have continued to deliver their perspectives regarding different practices and perceptions. This paper seeks to explore the different views regarding controversial medical technology and the related discourse highlighted by fundamentalists. It is appreciated that society does not sit quietly through inventions and discoveries, and the delivery of scientific breakthroughs via technological advancement has not stopped people from expressing opposing views. Although scientific breakthroughs and technological advancements provide opportunities for advancing the search for modern solutions to the challenges facing humanity, there should be an ordered and regulated uptake of the associated methods and recommendations. The human penchant for trial of new approaches based on personal beliefs should not be allowed to mislead the process of ascertaining that medical discoveries are applied in the best interest of saving lives and protecting the society’ moral and ethical fabric.
There are pertinent concerns regarding the procedure of allowing medical discoveries to be available for widespread consumption, and the ethical discussions surrounding how the society should respond to the related approaches. Belkin’s article demonstrates the concerns emanating from those who are directly affected by medical situations. Her focus on the processes followed by families in the pursuit of saving the lives of loved ones appears to shade some light on how to approach the discourse on controversial medical procedures. On one hand, the author considers the pain and suffering associated with Fanconi anemia and describes a relentless search for scientific help. To demonstrate the affected families’ situation, she describes one family as believing that “having seen the devastation wrought by the disease on one of their children, they refuse to allow it to claim another” (Belkin 3). This introduces an important viewpoint in that when the situation is considered through the eyes of the affected, the prolonged debate on whether it is right or wrong to seek the intervention of controversial procedures does not seem to hold water. The author further claims that the ethical arguments presented are biased since there has been ongoing research that has not received equal criticism. Berry (4) appreciates the problems associated with fundamentalists and writes that “they all seek power – they seek victory, in fact – by abandoning the priorities that permit us to seek and honor what is true while acknowledging the limits of our ability to know.” This statement serves to indicate support to Belkin’s claims that people directly involved in or affected by situations have a better understanding of the consequences of medical emergency, and should be included in evaluating the right thing to do. This may imply that even when there is no explicit operational framework guided by procedure and laws, it is the society to champion a social and moral framework that influences how emergencies and innovations should be dealt with and introduced to the community.
History demonstrates that for a long time society has heavily relied on a moral framework that underlines the critical aspects of allowing actions to take place only if they do not unsettle the existing delicate relationships and comply with certain norms. To highlight these concerns, Belkin (4) observes that “if we can screen an embryo for tissue type, won’t we one day screen for eye color or intelligence?” This common scientific breakthrough talk seems to have illuminated ethical discussion as being unfair, and this is considered to propose the acceptance of medical procedures based on the contributions they make to the lives of those who have first-hand experiences of their effects. Berry’s book introduces a consideration based on fundamentalism, and the obtaining discourse affecting concerns relating to life and religion. To make the fundamental choices during medical situations, those involved may be inclined to look beyond the moral provisions, or the simplistic justifications as may be availed through science. The danger with this situation relates to the lack of impartiality of those affected especially because of the personal and emotional involvement. It is often argued that technological advancements present the society with varied levels of awareness, and the manifesting worldviews have the potential to split populations along certain lines including religion and faith. As implied by Berry, reliance on fundamentalism to provide solutions to controversial concerns may not lead to optimal choices. The author emphasizes the importance of having a belief and value system that should not be swayed by new and unplanned emergencies or scientific breakthroughs that appear to moralize unfairly the sensitive issues of society, life, and religion. Society should seek to interrogate the ethical concerns of the associated practices, and attempt to offer guidance based on the realization that technological improvements can serve humanity better if people are united in championing for pro-life approaches. The author illustrates these claims when investigating Professor Weinberg’s argument about the absence of God. When confronted with the relevant questions, the professor claims he is pursuing inherent truths without considering the ramifications that the undertakings have on society. Characteristically, society is full of similar examples where people, by the social merits derived by the communities, use their influence to lead others in their directions. It is possible that when such actions are undertaken, evaluation on whether it was the right thing to do usually takes place after the action in question has already been accomplished. This view is considered to describe the danger of relying on fundamentalists of science or region to offer guidance relating to controversial issues touching on society’s well-being. Therefore, controversial medical procedures should not be allowed simply because they are backed by science and influential medical institutions.
Unless the boundaries are clearly spelled out by the operation of laws, the human penchant for exploration and adventure may lead to private experimentation, which might manifest itself as a group of persons strongly advocating for their visions of their society. Those who are pro-life may not wait for society to intervene in interpreting scenarios and prescribing solutions. Proponents, including Lisa, present their fair share of why they support the implementation of controversial procedures while opponents including Wendell have every right to champion a moral and social framework for regulating the operation of society in the face of innovation and discovery. The dynamism of technological advancement cannot be allowed to be the driver of change, and people should advocate for strong moral value systems that will withstand the test of time. Emergencies should be managed appropriately but the emotional moments emanating from them should not be allowed to write the course of society.
Works Cited
Belkin, Lisa. "The made-to-order savior." 2001.
Berry, Wendell. "God, Science, and Imagination." Sewanee Review 118.1 (2010).
For Paragraph 3
Quote 1
“But is the potential for abuse in some circumstances reason not to pursue research that can be lifesaving under the right circumstances?”(Belkin 3)
Quote 2
Berry (26) observes “not one person now living in the United States could be said to be living an exemplary moral life.”
