To What Extent do the Moral and Medical Obstacles to
Prolonging Life Outweigh the Possible Benefits of its Success?
Life extension science is the study of slowing down or
reversing the processes of ageing to extend both the maximum and average
lifespan. The prospect of overcoming human mortality has been an attractive
thought to many for a very long time understandably, as the initial prospect of
living a longer life would inevitably appear highly beneficial. Despite the
overwhelming appeal that the idea brings, as scientists seem to begin to come
close to solutions that hint at the possibility of life extension, questions
must be asked of the moral viability of the prospect of its success. There are
plenty of moral and medical obstacles that would need to be overcome before the
research into life extension can be fully justified. In this essay I aim to
explore in as much detail as possible these obstacles and weigh them up against
the benefits that a success in developing a life extension solution could bring.
A study that ties in strongly with the study of life
extension is gerontology. Gerontology is the study of changes people encounter
at they grow up, and includes biogerontology, geroscience and the effects of an
ageing population on society. Biomedical gerontology is a sub-discipline of
biogerontoloy. Biomedical biogerontology is the study of the possibilities of
postponing, or even preventing death in humans and animals. Many
biogerontologists believe that the way to approach their goals is by curing ageing-associated
diseases, as they believe that it is impossible postpone death and unwise to
attempt to do this. From the point of view of these biogerontologists
therefore, research into developing a product that extended one’s lifespan
would be purely a waste of money, time and resources as it would meet no end.
There are many theories among biologists as to what causes aging although it is
widely accepted that it is due to the different parts of the body ceasing to
operate correctly. These theories include wear and tear, which is the belief
that body parts are worn out from continuous use and the entering to the body
of chemicals and viruses, to the point at which they eventually lose their
capabilities to repair themselves (for example cells stop regenerating). An
alternative theory is a genetic theory that there are genes responsible for
programmed cell death (apoptosis), although this theory is more applicable to
the explanation of cell death than organism death. General imbalance in general
is the theory that as time passes; the body’s systems (for example the immune
system) gradually decline until they cease to function at all. Alternatively,
some theories exist that involve the accumulation of elements in the body
causing the body’s decline. These elements either come from the environment or as
products of cell metabolism. Although each of these biogerontological theories
look to be developing in a promising manner, it would cost a lot of money to
research into reversing any of these processes.Furthermore, these are simply
theories and would have to be tested on humans before any conclusions and
decisions could be made as to the possibilities of reversing processes and
extending life.
So far, successful experiments scientists have
performed whilst attempting to develop a life extension solution involve
techniques that include caloric reduction, antioxidants and HGH (human growth
hormone). With the use of these three techniques, the lifespans of test rodents
have been extended by forty percent. These scientists are confident that when
put into practice on humans, the same method could increase their lifespan by
almost thirty years. In terms of the medical obstacles of life prolonging
therefore, they do not seem to restrict the possibilities of developing a life
prolonging medicine. The free radical theory of ageing – first proposed by
Rebeca Gerschman and later partially proven by Denham Harman (he showed that
the reactions caused by the molecules contribute to the degradation of
biological systems) - suggests that over a long period of time, cells in the
human body are damaged by reactive oxygen species (ROS). These are highly
reactive molecules that are produced in small numbers in processes such as
cellular respiration. These molecules
damage cellular components such as fat and proteins. However, this is still a
theory as there has been no proof, so far, whether aging or the free radicals
take their toll on the body first, and the only way it can be proven one way or
the other, is if a medicine is developed that stabilizes these free radicals,
as then scientists can assess whether this postpones aging. Another method that has proven itself to
extend the life of rodents amongst other organisms is a technique called
caloric restriction. This method – which involves reducing calorie intake and
therefore decreasing amounts of corticosterone, which regulates metabolism –
has been proven to cause a delay in aging in eighty to ninety percent of
rodents tested. These experiments have been extended to be performed on rhesus
monkeys, generating similar results. The theory that antioxidants will extend a
lifespan has only conclusively been proved by tests on transgenic flies.
Antioxidants reduce damage caused by reactive oxygen metabolites, which damage
cell membranes and DNA and interfere with the exchange of genetic information.
When tested on transgenic flies, the removal of these metabolites by the
addition of anti-oxadive compounds caused an average increase in their lifespan
of over thirty percent. Human growth hormone (HGH) is often injected into those
afraid of the side effects of growing older. Natural production of the hormone
decreases so significantly that at the age of 30, people generally have 20% the
HGH that they would have had as a child. The extra injection of the hormone’s
effects have not been scientifically proven, but it is reported to have reduced
symptoms of aging among patients. It has, however, been demonstrated to
simulate incredible results, such as an increase in muscle tissue, increase in
the immune system’s strength and the regrowth of internal organs, by Jerry
Emanuelson and studies such as the Kabi International Metabolic Study.There is
no evidence that these results come with long term harmful effects. As far as
the medical research into life extension has gone so far, the results have
proven to be promising. However these experiments described have cost a great
deal of money and have only been conducted on animals such as rodents and
monkeys, and in order to create a viable product, human testing would be
necessary. Before this takes place, a lot more research would have to be done
to ensure the safety of the victim of testing and until this has taken place,
there can be no guarantees that human life extension is possible.
Despite the promise that the medical side to life
extension shows, we must consider more than just whether it is possible to
extend life. The effects of such a result on our society must be considered. A
longer living population would have many negative economic impacts on a
society. Firstly, the dependency ratio would be increased: assuming that the
life extension solution did not cure the incapability that grows with old age
(for example reduced mobility) that justifies retirement, the retirement age
would have to remain roughly the same. Therefore there would be more people
claiming pension benefits for the amount of people working and paying income
taxes. Inevitably, this would lead to taxes rising, a scenario that does not
seem appealing. With more government money going into pension funds, there
would be far less left for capital investment, therefore increasing the
likelihood of a fall of the rate of economic growth. Secondly, with a greater
number of elderly people, health care would become more expensive for the government.
This could, again, lead to a rise in taxes. With taxes inevitably increasing,
work incentive would be considerably lower and investment would become
increasingly attractive, resulting in a decrease of growth and productivity. A
society with a higher percentage of elderly people would also see many changes
of goods and services provided, as services such as retirement homes would be far
more in demand. Assuming however that the life extension
solution did cure the incapability that come with old age, a longer lifespan
would result in people working for a longer period of their life; it is
inevitable that retirement ages would be pushed back in order not to have to
increase taxes for the rest of the population to accommodate for the needs of
the elderly. Many social institutions would also be hugely affected if the
humans in charge had a longer lifespan, for example federal judges, who are
appointed for life. This would then increase competition for jobs, as there
would be so few vacancies with people carrying on their jobs for so long.
However, those in favour of research into life extension could argue that
people working for longer would increase economic productivity in that the
skilled workers would be applying their skills for longer and the less skilled
would have more time to develop their talents to perfection, or in fact, to
change careers, a life choice that might not seem so risky if life was longer.
However Daniel Callahan argues against this point, claiming that "If you
have people staying in their jobs for 100 years, that is going to make it
really tough for young people to move in and get ahead, if people like the idea
of delayed gratification, this is going to be a wonderful chance to experience
it." Delayed gratification is the ability to exert patience in waiting for
a reward, generally in the hope of a larger reward later. Further to Callahan’s
argument, with which I agree, is that institutions are likely to stagnate when
they are dominated by the same few executives and managers for too long, as
they would not receive “a constant infusion of youthful talent and ideas”.
I believe that the length of life as it is means that lifelong
commitments are feasible and often attractive prospects. The obvious example is
marriage: if a couple is old, and the participants do not feel that love each
other, but can endure each other’s company, then they are often willing to stay
together for the rest of their lives (perhaps for the sake of a family).
However, if their lifespan was doubled for example, then it is very likely that
the couple would act in a different way. For one thing, if they would have
remained a couple for the sake of children, a longer lifespan would mean that
the period in which they had full responsibility for their children would be a
smaller portion of their life, and therefore marriage may turn into a
commitment whilst children are growing up, at the end of which a couple may
part more easily. A psychologist named Richard Kalish explored the social
effects of life extension and came to the conclusion that as life span
increases, marriage will be seen less as a lifelong union and more as a
long-term commitment, and therefore he predicted there would be an increase in
short marriages and therefore divorce. Chris Hackler works at the University of
Arkansas as head of the Division of Medical Humanities. He predicts that as a
result in the increase of short marriages, “half-siblings will become more
common”. He also points out that “if couples continue the current trend of
having children beginning in their 20s and 30s, then eight or even ten
generations might be alive simultaneously”. Interaction between siblings would
change massively, assuming that the life extension would also increase a
woman’s period of fertility, as this would likely result in much larger age
gaps between children. Hackler phrases this as "if we were
100 years younger than our parents or 60 years apart from our siblings, that
would certainly create a different set of social relationships". I agree
with Hackler’s point of view and this leads me to believe that the moral
obstacles would outweigh the possibility of life extension success.
Another social issue in regard to an aging
population, which is what one would be considering in trying to find a life
extension technology, is attitudes between the young and old. In the opinion of
Leon Kass, who headed a paper for the U.S. President’s Council of Bioethics,
quality of life would suffer in an aging population if we are too focused on
extending life and not on improving life itself. Kass claims that “the nation
might commit less of its intellectual energy and social resources to the cause
of initiating the young, and more to the cause of accommodating the old… a
world that truly belonged to the living would be very different, and perhaps a
much diminished world, focused too narrowly on maintaining life and not
sufficiently broadly on building the good life." This leads me to believe
that the social impacts associated with life extension are too negative to
consider research in the area.
Another moral dilemma that I feel adds
significantly to the reasons against extending human lifespan is distribution of
the life prolonging solution. The wealthiest section of our community is bound
to have priority as the solution is likely to be expensive, if not unaffordable
for the majority of the world’s population. My survey tells me that out of the
34 people questioned, only one person (2.94%) would be willing to spend all of
their money on medicine to prolong their life. However the medicine would be
likely to be so expensive that 10% of earnings (which is what the most amount
of people opted for as the percentage they would be willing to pay) towards the
medicine would simply not suffice. Considering that most of the people I asked
would be willing to pay no more than 40% of their money towards a medication,
the medication would likely be restricted to those for whom 40% of their
earnings was equal to or greater than the cost of the medication. However,
those in favour of research into life extension may argue that only those
willing to pay all of their money would deserve the medication, as these are
the people who truly want it. Therefore they would argue that those who cannot
afford the medication because its cost is not equal to or less than 40% of
their income are irrelevant, as they do not want the medication strongly
enough. However, I would argue that even some people who want the medication
badly enough to give all their money towards it may still be unable to purchase
it, and this is where the dilemma lies: the less fortunate of society, no
matter how strong their desire is for the medication, would not be able to take
it unless a scheme was set up to provide these people with the means to do so.
However, in my opinion sorting between those who deserve the medication free of
charge and those who do not would be completely unfeasible. For these reasons I
believe that the moral obstacles to prolonging life outweigh the possible
benefits of its success.
From a medical point of view,
research on life extension technologies is viable, and is likely to lead to results. Experiments have been conducted on animals;
these experiments have been predicted to prove results on humans too, however
this is yet to be confirmed by success on humans. There is still a possibility
that it is not possible to extend the lifespan of a human being, in which case
any research conducted would be a complete waste of time, money and resources.
Furthermore, after delving into the possible ramifications for society if a
life extending medicine was developed, I must conclude that a longer lifespan
is not worth the negative changes it would cause. For example, our society
would be completely reshaped and many problems would have to be overcome. These
problems include a change in the dependency ratio of our society, which would
cause more pressure to be put on the government and inevitably lead to a tax
raise, which would not be appreciated by the general public. Another problem
would be that lifelong commitments are likely to become long term commitments,
and with commitments such as marriage, this could pose a serious problem to
what we see today as family life. With such an age difference that would be
created if humans lived for longer, there would be bigger social divides in our
community and a huge change in interactions between groups of this community. A
final issue with a life extension solution would be its distribution, as it is
very unlikely that a fair way could be found in which to distribute such a
valuable product. Furthermore, I have been led to believe that whether this
research should be done should be discussed as soon as possible, as once a life
extending technology is developed, there will be no controlling of any damage
it may cause. As Daniel Callahan puts it: "if this could ever happen, then
we'd better ask what kind of society we want to get… We had better not go
anywhere near it until we have figured those problems out." If people do
not discuss the issues associated with life extension technologies now, research inevitably will be
done, due to the immense natural desire of humans for a longer life, not to
mention the fact that it seems to be a possible goal, and therefore scientists
will want to achieve it.I have no doubt that a hugely
expanded life span would have many effects on individuals and society and I
believe that the medical and moral obstacles outweigh the possible benefits of
the success of life extension to the extent that the research shouldn't take
place.
