Life Liberty & the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics [Paperback]

Dr. Kass is an MD by training. He then went on to become a Professor at the U of Chicago with the Department of Social Thought (not a lecturer). While at the U of C, I never once saw him "prancing around," though he did once have a book signing - which seems normal for people who do things like, say, write books. His views would be considered by most to be conservative and thus "right-wing" since to people such as Durfee, the two are exactly the same. His views are thoughtful, though, and should be considered by anyone with an open mind. I imagine Dr. Kass has had to discuss his views with patients who suffer from neurologic diseases and doubt that he has any difficulty doing so. As a pathologist who sees all the horrible cases a hospital has while interacting with many scientists, I don't find it difficult to tell people certain treatments are morally wrong, and I have no where near the intellectual fortitude of Dr. Kass. Finally, I doubt if Dr. Kass works any less hard than Mr. Durfee's scientists who are "working overtime" and "toiling hours away." Mr. Durfee is either a scientist with an over-inflated idea of himself or an idealogue who has no idea how hard or why most scientists work. Mr. Durfee's biggest complaint is that the book has somehow insulted him. He has obviously not read it and instead insults anyone who might question the use of the sick and dying to justify all methods of scientific research.

Like his previous books, this book is timely and well-written. It is accessible to most people (who actually take the time to read it). It provides cogent arguments against some methods that many have come to agree with for the sake of the sick. It should be read by anyone who believes that the means are not always justified by the end and who is open to intellectual argument.

About half of this book deals with abstract, and half, concrete, issues. His abstract sections I was almost in total agreement with. Ethical philosophy, he writes, long ago lost track of how to deal with issues rather than theories, and real peoople rather than 'rational man' constructs. Minutia is argued on a quest to develop a consistent theory of the human right and good. BUT NO SUCH THEORY NEED TO BE CREATED! We are dealing with people who make most decisions on a hearty combination of feeling (not amenable to intellectualization) and rational thought. This is where Kass comes from.

Add to this that biology has gone on so well with the reductionist program that even it has started to lose track of how to deal with the whole person. Like wantling to understand a person-in-full by studying the small minutia of their lives seperately, event-by-event; you won't get the feel of the whole person that way; she must be studied as a whole person. Biology, by breaking us down to the smallest constituent parts, don't explain us, so much as break us down to the type of bite-sized chunks they find helpful in THEIR studies.

So Kass starts from the philosophy of the whole person. It is here that I feel he uses this more as an excuse to be inarticulate than a tool to REALLY examine the issue. Whether it is cloning, euthenasia, the selling of organs; he keeps taling about how our human dignity is threatened but never even attempts to explain what in the world he means.

He argues that our instinctual revulsion to such processes may reflect a deeper wisdom that intellect can't articulate. But didn't we also feel revulsion to the idea of heart transplants too? Many of us feel revulsed by the very idea of surgery (going under the knife and all). Does that mean that we are expressing a 'deeper wisdom' and should not have surgury at all? I think our revulsion to biotech comes more from the thought of the unknown and our desire to hold on to the "natural order of things".

Life, he tells us, is precious. Thus, we must be very careful with how we treat it. I agree. But why does it follow that we have to, then, leave birth up to the chance process that causes miscarriages, deformities, premature deaths, and...let's be honest...unwanted babies that may well grow up to abuse? And why does it follow that an old woman who is nearing a painful end to her life (with only a glimpse of hope for recovery) be made to live out her last days when she wants to end it?

To be sure, there are quite a few philosophers who are just as sensitive to human dignity as Kass is who take the opposite conclusions. John Lachs ("Community of Individuals", "Relevance of Philosophy to Life") and Sidney Hook ("Convictions") are two notable examples.

To close, though I agree with Kass's theoretical goals, I disagree on virually everything else. This book, though, is professionally writte, gives some (some, that is) strong points and never comes off as zeolous, abrasive, or mean-spirited toward critics. Read this - even if you don't agree with Kass.

Kass does just the opposite. In the spirit of CS Lewis and his "The Abolition of Man," which Kass references, Kass paints a clear and understandable picture, suitable as an introduction to the subject. However, such a statement is misleading: the book is by no means just an introduction. Simply, Kass sets out to synthesize a workable and, more importantly, objective ethos that is not simply "ivory-tower," but applicable in day-to-day functioning. That such a book is coherant and pleasurable to read is simply icing on the cake.