Abstract
Freud, in his despairing lament on progress and modernity, Civilization and Its Discontents, asked: Why should he be grateful for the advances in transportation and communication that enabled him to be in touch with loved ones at a distance when, without such technological advances, his loved ones would never have had either the capacity or the motivation to leave the family circle in the first place?1 In the 50-plus years since the original publication of Freud’s essay, our own awareness of the perils of progress has only deepened. The arena where our own ambivalence about technologic advance is the most apparent is the medical arena. At every turn, we are dazzled by new capacities and, at the same time, confused about how to apply them in ways that augment rather than shrink our humanity. To reask Freud’s question in a slightly altered form: Why be grateful for the ability to prolong life, if, by so doing, we only increase suffering?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Freud, S., Civilization and Its Discontents ,W. W. Norton, New York (1961).
Both quotations are from Norman, C, Clerics urge ban on altering germline cells, Science 220:1360–1 (June 24, 1983).
For an analysis of the study paper and the commission’s report, Splicing Life: A Report on the Social and Ethical Issues of Genetic Engineering with Human Beings ,see Boone, C. K., Splicing life, with scalpel and scythe, Hastings Cent. Rep. (Apr. 1983), 8–10.
For a review see Moreno, J., Private genes and public ethics, Hastings Cent. Rep. (Oct. 1983), 5–6.
Grobstein, C., Flower, H., and Mendeloff, J., External human fertilization: An evaluation of policy, Science 222:127–32 (Oct. 14, 1983).
Krimmel, H. T., The case against surrogate parenting, Hastings Cent. Rep. (Oct. 1983), 35–9.
Robertson, J. A., Surrogate mothers: Not so novcl aftet all, Hastings Cent. Rep. (Oct. 1983), 28–34).
J Güillemm.Holmstrom, L., Legal cases, govemment rcgulahons, and clinical teahhes in newbom intensive catc. Am. /. Perinatal. 1:89–97 (Oct. 1983).
Angcll, M., Handicapped childien: Baby Doe and Uncle Sam, N. Eng. /. Med. 309(11):659–661 (Scpt 15, 1983).
Annas, G. Baby Doe redux: Doctots as child abuscrs. Ilasings Cent Rep. (Oct. 198?), 26–7.
Fletcher, J., and Evans, M., Matemal bonding in eariy fetal ultrasound cxaminations, N. Eng. f. Med. 508(7):39 2–3 (Feb. 17, 1983).
Kolata, G., First trimcster prenatal diagnosis, Science 221:1031–2 (Sept. 9, 1985).
Hamson, M., Colbus, M., and Filly, R.t Management of the fetus wim a conectable congenital defect, /AMA 246(7):774–7.(Aug. 14, 1981).
Ruddick, W., and Wilcox, W., Operating on thc fctus, Hostings Genf. Rep. (üct. 1982), 10–14.
Fletchcr, J., Ilie fetus as pabent: Ethical issues, /AMA 246(7):772–5 (Aug. 14, 1981).
Bosk, C. Pipers and tunes: Personhood in three clinical settings (mimeo).
Ruddick and Wilcox. idem., 13.
Baron, C., “If You priclc us, do wc not bleed?” Of Shylock, fetuses, and the conccpt of pcrson in the law, Law, Mediane and Health Care (Apr 1W> 52–61
Bosk. C, Occupational rituals in pahcnt managcmcnt. N. Eng. f. Med. 303:71–6 (July 10, 1980).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1985 Aubrey Milunsky and George J. Annas
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bosk, C.L. (1985). Sociomedical and Ethical Dilemmas in Fetal Medicine. In: Milunsky, A., Annas, G.J. (eds) Genetics and the Law III. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-4952-5_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-4952-5_27
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4684-4954-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-4952-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive