Advertisement

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 179–185 | Cite as

Living longer: age retardation and autonomy

  • Elisabeth HildtEmail author
Scientific Contribution

Abstract

Research into human ageing is a growing field of research with two central foci: geriatric medicine works to reduce the incidence and severity of age-related diseases and disabilities by devising adequate therapeutic and preventive strategies. A second focus, this time in the emerging field of biogerontology, is to bring about a general retardation of the ageing process and by this increase the average and maximum human lifespan. This contribution looks into the second focus, i.e. the possibility of age retardation which, for the time being, is merely hypothetical. After outlining research strategies studying age retardation in animal experiments, it will ask how extending human life by technological interventions might play out on the individual, familial and social level. The central concern here will be autonomy-linked issues, seeing that in debates concerning the ethical implications of age-retarding techniques the argument from autonomy is one of the main arguments in favour of the prolongation of human life. In particular, this contribution will assess whether the argument from autonomy does, in fact, unequivocally support the recourse to age-retarding techniques.

Keywords

Ageing Bioethics Biomedical enhancement Ethics Medical Informed consent Longevity Personal autonomy Self concept 

References

  1. Baird, D.M., and D. Kipling. 2004. The extent and significance of telomere loss with age. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1019: 265–268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benn, S.I. 1988. A theory of freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berofsky, B. 1996. Liberation from self. A theory of personal autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bodnar, A.G., M. Ouellette, M. Frolkis, et al. 1998. Extension of life-span by introduction of telomerase into normal human cells. Science 279: 349–352.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bostrom, N. 2005. In defense of posthuman dignity. Bioethics 19: 202–214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Couzin, J. 2004. Aging research’s family feud. Science 303: 1276–1279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeGrazia, D. 2000. Prozac, enhancement, and self-creation. The Hastings Center Report 30(2): 34–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Grey, A.D.N.J., B.N. Ames, J.K. Andersen, et al. 2002. Time to talk SENS: Critiquing the immutability of human aging. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 959: 452–462.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dworkin, G. 1988. The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Elliot, C. 1998. The tyranny of happiness: Ethics and cosmetic psychopharmacology. In Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications, ed. E. Parens, 177–188. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Faden, R.R., and T.L. Beauchamp. 1986. A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Finkel, T., and N.J. Holbrook. 2000. Oxidants, oxidative stress and the biology of ageing. Nature 408: 239–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fukuyama, F. 2002. Our posthuman future. New York, N.Y.: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.Google Scholar
  14. Gems, D. 2003. Is more life always better? The new biology of aging and the meaning of life. The Hastings Center Report 33(4): 31–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gems, D., and J.J. McElwee. 2003. Microarraying mortality. Nature 424: 259–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glannon, W. 2002. Identity, prudential concern, and extended lives. Bioethics 16(3): 266–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guarente, L., and C. Kenyon. 2000. Genetic pathways that regulate ageing in model organisms. Nature 408: 255–262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris, J. 2002. A response to Walter Glannon. Bioethics 16(3): 284–291.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hayflick, L. 2000. The future of ageing. Nature 408: 267–269.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Juengst, E.T., R.H. Binstock, M. Mehlman, S.G. Post, and P. Whitehouse. 2003a. Biogerontology, “anti-aging medicine”, and the challenges of human enhancement. The Hastings Center Report 33(4): 21–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Juengst, E.T., R.H. Binstock, M.J. Mehlman, and S.P. Post. 2003b. Antiaging research and the need for public dialogue. Science 299: 1323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lucke, J.C., and W. Hall. 2005. Who wants to live forever? EMBO Reports 6: 98–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olshansky, S.J., D. Perry, R.A. Miller, and R.N. Butler. 2006. In pursuit of the longevity dividend. What should we be doing to prepare for the unprecedented aging of humanity? The Scientist 20(3):28–32. http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/3/1/28/1/.Google Scholar
  24. Overall, C. 2003. Aging, death, and human longevity. A philosophical inquiry. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  25. Parens, E. (ed.). 1998. Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Pohlmann, St. 2005. Die ethische Dimension der Generationensolidarität. Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie 38: 233–241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. President’s Council on Bioethics. 2003. Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. Washington, DC: Dana Press.Google Scholar
  28. Raz, J. 1986. The morality of freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Schloendorn, J. 2006. Making the case for human life extension: Personal arguments. Bioethics 20: 191–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair for Ethics in the Life SciencesEberhard Karls Universität TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations