An ethical assessment of anti-aging medicine.

Tom Mackey
{"title":"An ethical assessment of anti-aging medicine.","authors":"Tom Mackey","doi":"10.1089/109454503322733045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This assessment presents and evaluates various ethical arguments for and against anti-aging medicine. After briefly defining human aging and how it could be viewed as a medical problem, the paper reviews scientific evidence that indicates that medical intervention could substantially change the rate of human aging in the foreseeable future. This evidence includes research in biochemistry, cell, and molecular biology (including research on mitochondrial DNA and oxidative stress as well as research on cellular and molecular replacement interventions), non-human animal studies, and human studies. The following six ethical arguments against anti-aging medicine are presented and evaluated: 1) inequity: the poor die young by the millions, while the rich refuse to age; 2) denying aging's immutability; 3) dominating nature, altering and commodifying ourselves; 4) overpopulation: carrying capacity concerns and the rights of future people to be born; 5) ennui: with no natural deadline, life itself outlives its value; 6) ageism: prejudice against the old and the young. The paper then evaluates four ethical arguments in favor of anti-aging medicine: 1) beneficence: duties to maintain health and prevent disease and death; 2) efficiency: slowing down aging would reduce the rates for all of the most common causes of death in developed societies; 3) limited autonomy: freedom to purchase anti-aging medicines that may or may not work, so long as they are not harmful; 4) improved quality of life: more active, healthier, and wiser (two propositions supporting this argument - that anti-aging medicine would allow for a longer, more active, healthier, and fuller life and that wisdom comes from experience, not senescence - are also presented and evaluated). The arguments in favor of anti-aging medicine are found to be more compelling than the arguments against it. The paper concludes with the recommendation that anti-aging medicine should be funded and regulated in ways that facilitate its potential both to reduce the incidence and prevalence of many diseases and to allow for longer, fuller, and more meaningful lives.","PeriodicalId":86085,"journal":{"name":"Journal of anti-aging medicine","volume":"6 3","pages":"187-204"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/109454503322733045","citationCount":"27","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of anti-aging medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/109454503322733045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

Abstract

This assessment presents and evaluates various ethical arguments for and against anti-aging medicine. After briefly defining human aging and how it could be viewed as a medical problem, the paper reviews scientific evidence that indicates that medical intervention could substantially change the rate of human aging in the foreseeable future. This evidence includes research in biochemistry, cell, and molecular biology (including research on mitochondrial DNA and oxidative stress as well as research on cellular and molecular replacement interventions), non-human animal studies, and human studies. The following six ethical arguments against anti-aging medicine are presented and evaluated: 1) inequity: the poor die young by the millions, while the rich refuse to age; 2) denying aging's immutability; 3) dominating nature, altering and commodifying ourselves; 4) overpopulation: carrying capacity concerns and the rights of future people to be born; 5) ennui: with no natural deadline, life itself outlives its value; 6) ageism: prejudice against the old and the young. The paper then evaluates four ethical arguments in favor of anti-aging medicine: 1) beneficence: duties to maintain health and prevent disease and death; 2) efficiency: slowing down aging would reduce the rates for all of the most common causes of death in developed societies; 3) limited autonomy: freedom to purchase anti-aging medicines that may or may not work, so long as they are not harmful; 4) improved quality of life: more active, healthier, and wiser (two propositions supporting this argument - that anti-aging medicine would allow for a longer, more active, healthier, and fuller life and that wisdom comes from experience, not senescence - are also presented and evaluated). The arguments in favor of anti-aging medicine are found to be more compelling than the arguments against it. The paper concludes with the recommendation that anti-aging medicine should be funded and regulated in ways that facilitate its potential both to reduce the incidence and prevalence of many diseases and to allow for longer, fuller, and more meaningful lives.
抗衰老药物的伦理评估。
本评估提出并评估了支持和反对抗衰老药物的各种伦理论点。在简要定义了人类衰老以及如何将其视为一个医学问题之后,本文回顾了科学证据,这些证据表明,在可预见的未来,医疗干预可能会大大改变人类衰老的速度。这些证据包括生物化学、细胞和分子生物学的研究(包括线粒体DNA和氧化应激的研究以及细胞和分子替代干预的研究)、非人类动物研究和人类研究。本文提出并评价了以下六个反对抗衰老药物的伦理论点:1)不平等:数以百万计的穷人早死,而富人拒绝衰老;2)否认衰老的不变性;3)主宰自然,改造和商品化自己;4)人口过剩:承载能力问题和未来出生人口的权利;5)厌倦:没有自然的期限,生命本身也失去了它的价值;年龄歧视:对老年人和年轻人的偏见。然后,本文评估了支持抗衰老药物的四个伦理论点:1)慈善:保持健康和预防疾病和死亡的责任;2)效率:减缓老龄化将降低发达社会所有最常见死因的死亡率;3)有限的自主权:购买抗衰老药物的自由,只要不有害,抗衰老药物可能起作用,也可能不起作用;4)提高生活质量:更积极、更健康、更聪明(支持这一论点的两个命题——抗衰老药物会让人活得更长久、更积极、更健康、更充实;智慧来自经验,而不是衰老——也被提出并进行了评估)。人们发现,支持抗衰老药物的论点比反对它的论点更有说服力。这篇论文的结论是,抗衰老药物的资金和监管应该以促进其潜力的方式进行,既可以减少许多疾病的发病率和流行率,又可以让人过上更长久、更充实、更有意义的生活。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信