![[comment image]](http://www.erinoconnor.org/archives/commentimage.gif)
Entry: More on Shvarts
A commenter at Neptunus Lex reminds us of a quote from John Adams:
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain"
...which is kind of depressing in this context.
Posted by david foster at April 18, 2008 3:15 PM
Although this post seems to assume that Shvarts' project is fraught with ethical problems, I really don't see any.
Of course, whether you think this project has such problems depends on your views on other issues - such as abortion or the value of human life. I think its worth spelling out how different assumptions lead to different conclusions:
Shvarts' project, which could have landed her in a hospital or worse...
This may be a legal problem, but I doubt its a moral one. If Shvarts wants to risk harm to herself for what she believes is a higher cause, its strictly her own business.
...involved a horribly negligent attitude toward human life. . Consider the massive ethical and legal issues currently surrounding fertility clinics' disposal of unused embryos and even unfertilized eggs.
I don't believe that possession of human dna is a "magic" property which automatically confers moral status on its bearer. I find it much more plausible that it is the intelligence and consciousness of humans which gives them them their moral status. As far as embryos go, create them, destroy them, display them, whatever - I fail to see why any of these acts have moral consequences.
I would love it if Shvarts critics, after accusing her of being "horribly negligent towards human life," would try to explain why its bad to be negligent towards human life - where "human life" is defined broadly enough to encompass embryos.
Posted by alex at April 19, 2008 12:37 AM
Alex,
One does not have to be anti-abortion to have ethical issues with what Shvarts did. I am pro-choice, and I have problems with it. That said, my ultimate point is that this is not for you or for me to decide. Yale's IRB should have reviewed it--and it absolutely has an ethical duty, as well as a legal one. If Shvarts really did inseminate herself and then induce menstruation and possible abortion for the purposes of a school project, she should have gotten approval from the IRB. If she did not, there are big ethical, procedural, and legal problems for Yale right there. If she did, Yale still has those problems, as approving such a project (assuming there is anything more to it than lies) would have left Yale immensely vulnerable on many levels. The mere fact that she plans to display her own blood in a public venue should have been reviewed for obvious public health reasons.
Posted by Erin O'Connor at April 19, 2008 8:06 AM
re: fertility clinics and embryos
unused embryos typically belong to the couples that made them. in best conditions they have a fifty percent chance of developing into a baby. there are massive ethical issues--any good clinic will inform the couple of these ethical issues. i fear the day the government says my embryos must go to another couple.
as for Shvarts--i have to agree with david.
Posted by jason at April 19, 2008 11:43 AM
Alex, I think the deeper error in your statement is here
Shvarts wants to risk harm to herself for what she believes is a higher cause, its strictly her own business.Schvarts did not do this by herself, she did it with the permission of Yale and with Yale's imprimatur, while Yale had (at least some) in loco parentis responsibility.
Posted by Annoying Old Guy at April 20, 2008 6:40 AM
What if a student, for a class art project, wanted to build and fly and ultralight aircraft of unsound and unsafe design?...and wrapped the whole project in "postmodern" gibberish? And what if he flew it, predictably crashed, and broke his leg...then repaired it, flew it again, and broke his arm?
Is there any university that would go along with this scenario? I suspect the answer would be a function of the "quality" of the postmodern gibberish.
Posted by david foster at April 20, 2008 7:52 AM