Saving Lives Versus Ethics

Imagine that you could save the lives of future children just by donating the brain of your deceased child. Would you do it? This issue has torn people apart for decades. Since the progression of the medical field, more and more options have been found to treat life-burdening diseases. But brain research is currently under a big debate; while some approve the process in order to get a better understanding of mental disorders, others oppose research because it is a violation of free will.

In the editorial “A priceless resource”, the author discusses the idea of using fetal and baby brains of those that have died in order to find treatments for diseases such as schizophrenia and autism. The author of the editorial realizes the controversy of performing such experiments because “the brains must be donated by grieving parents who have just lost a child in sudden and sometimes violent circumstances.” But he comments that diseases “such as autism, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are a huge societal burden, yet there are few effective treatments for them.” And even though many scientists are researching these diseases, progress would escalate with the access of fetal and child brains.

On the other hand, the article “Ethical issues in neuroscience” by Thomas Fuchs states that the research process ignores the right of free will and choice as stated by the judiciary system, going against the views of the first author. The characteristics of free will include “(a) being explainable by their reasons or motives, (b) experiencing oneself as the author of the action, and (c) one’s capability to ‘act differently’ under equal external circumstances” (603). Since the brain is no longer within the body, the body cannot make a sensible decision and therefore violating this law would be a criminal act.

After reading the two opposing views I feel that the article supporting brain research prevailed to be more convincing. The pro editorial includes many references to national groups trying to make brain research more acceptable and acknowledgeable to the public in hopes of promoting use of fetal brains. While the con article mainly talks about the cons of brain research in a manner that is very dry and most of the time arid to read. And the instilled political issues within such a controversial topic can confuse readers with the high level of vocabulary used. Personally, I prefer the editorial taking the pro side of brain research to the article against the research because progress within the medical field is one of the most important aspects of creating a better life for all. Without such research, disorders such as the ones stated earlier will become harder to deal with, causing more stress and burden. In general, anything that would initially help improve the lives of children should be considered.


Works Cited:

"A priceless resource.” Nature 27 Oct. 2011: 478-7370. Web. 27 Jan. 2011.

Fusch, Thomas. "Ethical issues in neuroscience." Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. Web. 27 Jan. 2011.