Technologies for enhancement of the human body historically have taken the form of an apparatus: a technological device inserted in, or appended to, the human body. The margins of these devices were clearly discernible and materially circumscribed, allowing the distinction between the corporeality of the human body and the “machine” to remain both ontologically and materially secure. This dualism has performed some important work for human rights theorists, regulators, and policy makers, enabling each to imagine they can establish where the (...) human ends and the other begins. New regenerative products such as Infuse™ and Amplify™ subsist, as animal-derived scaffolds seeded with growth hormone implanted within a prosthetic device. They are much more materially complex, and their identities thus remain open to contestation. Following Lochlann Jain’s 2006 work, I thus attend closely to their social lives, particularly the stories that are told about them and how these are employed to construct understandings of what kind of a phenomenon they are: systemic drug, biologic, or combinatorial medical device. The significance of this classificatory project is revealed in the final section of this paper, which explores how these stories shape understandings of “product failure,” liability, and causation when such products overflow their material and ontological categorization and their recipients become disturbingly “more than human.”. (shrink)

The contention of this paper is that the current ethical debate over embryonic stem cell research is polarised to an extent that is not warranted by the underlying ethical conflict. It is argued that the ethical debate can be rendered more nuanced, and less polarised, by introducing non-binary notions of moral rightness and wrongness. According to the view proposed, embryonic stem cell research—and possibly other controversial activities too—can be considered ‘a little bit right and a little bit wrong’. If this (...) idea were to become widely accepted, the ethical debate would, for conceptual reasons, become less polarised. (shrink)

This paper explores how current United States policies for funding nonreproductive cloning are justified and argues against that justification. I show that a common conceptual framework underlies the national prohibition on the use of public funds for cloning research, which I call the simple argument. This argument rests on two premises: that research harming human embryos is unethical and that embryos produced via fertilization are identical to those produced via cloning. In response to the simple argument, I challenge the latter (...) premise. I demonstrate there are important ontological differences between human embryos (produced via fertilization) and clone embryos (produced via cloning). After considering the implications my argument has for the morality of publicly funding cloning for potential therapeutic purposes and potential responses to my position, I conclude that such funding is not only ethically permissible, but also humane national policy. (shrink)

This paper explores how current United States policies for funding nonreproductive cloning are justified and argues against that justification. I show that a common conceptual framework underlies the national prohibition on the use of public funds for cloning research, which I call the simple argument. This argument rests on two premises: that research harming human embryos is unethical and that embryos produced via fertilization are identical to those produced via cloning. In response to the simple argument, I challenge the latter (...) premise. I demonstrate there are important ontological differences between human embryos (produced via fertilization) and clone embryos (produced via cloning). After considering the implications my argument has for the morality of publicly funding cloning for potential therapeutic purposes and potential responses to my position, I conclude that such funding is not only ethically permissible, but also humane national policy. (shrink)

Pemanfaatan sel punca embrionik (Embryonic Stem Cells/ESCs) telah menjadi isu global dalam bidang bioteknologi modern yang selalu memicu perdebatan mendalam dari berbagai ilmuwan, filosof, agamawan, ahli hukum dan praktisi politik. Penelitian ini membahas gambaran umum dan manfaat sel punca embrionik, serta menganalisisnya berdasarkan pandangan hukum Islam. Metode yang digunakan adalah studi pustaka multidisiplin dari teks-teks ilmu medis, etika dan hukum Islam. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa meskipun masih terdapat perbedaan pandangan dari para ahli hukum Islam tentang kapan awal mula kehidupan, (...) namun ahli hukum Islam secara tegas membedakan antara “kehidupan aktual (actual life)” dan “kehidupan potensial (potential life)”. Kedua jenis kehidupan ini dibedakan oleh waktu peniupan roh pada manusia. Sehingga melalui pandangan ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa pemanfaatan sel punca embrionik dalam pengembangan bioteknologi dapat dibenarkan karena pengertian manusia pada tahap embrio dipahami sebagai manusia “potensial”, sebatas jasad yang belum memiliki roh, dan belum dapat dikatakan sebagai manusia “aktual” yang memiliki kehidupan “aktual” bersama roh dan jasad. (shrink)