Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 169–179 | Cite as

Human gene therapy and the slippery slope argument

  • Veikko Launis
Article

Abstract

The article investigates the validity of two different versions of the slippery slope argument construed in relation to human gene therapy: the empirical and the conceptual argument. The empirical version holds that our accepting somatic cell therapy will eventually cause our accepting eugenic medical goals. The conceptual version holds that we are logically committed to accepting such goals once we have accepted somatic cell therapy. It is argued that neither the empirical nor the conceptual version of the argument can provide a conclusive moral reason for banning somatic cell therapy. According to a third interpretation, referred to as the arbitrary result argument, the many apparent similarities between somatic cell therapy and eugenic-based human genetic engineering drive us to make principled choices concerning what differences and similarities between the two practices should be regarded as morally (ir)relevant. Decisions of this kind are likely to have unpredictable moral consequences. Thus formulated, the slippery slope argument has much plausibility. One objects to somatic cell therapy not so much because of what is at the bottom of the slope on which it lies, but because it is on a slope of which one does not know what is at the bottom. While the arbitrary result argument does not provide a conclusive reason for prohibiting human gene therapy, it reminds of a very important thing: when making bioethical decisions, we should be as specific and as consistent as possible about our basic moral and medical concepts.

disease eugenics germ-line gene therapy slippery slope argument somatic cell gene therapy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aula, P., M. Hietala, P. Niemelä, A.R. Aro, A. Hakonen and L. Peltonen: 1996, 'Miten suomalaiset suhtautuvat geenitesteihin', Duodecim 112, 95–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, T.L. and J.F. Childress: 1989, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 3rd edn. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, E.M.: 1996, 'Ethics of Gene Therapy', in: B. Gert, E.M. Berger, G.F. Cahill, Jr., K.D. Clouser, C.M. Culver, J.B. Moeschler and G.H.S. Singer (eds.), Morality and the New Genetics. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Barlett Publishers, pp. 209–223.Google Scholar
  4. Berger, E.M. and B.M. Gert: 1991, 'Genetic Disorders and the Ethical Status of Germ-Line Gene Therapy', The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16, 667–683.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Boone, C.K.: 1988, 'Bad Axioms in Genetic Engineering', Hastings Center Report (August-September) 18, 9–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan, A., D.W. Brock, N. Daniels and D. Wikler: 2000, From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Caplan, A.L.: 1992, 'If Gene Therapy is the Cure, What is the Disease?', in: G.J. Annas and S. Elias (eds.), Gene Mapping: Using Law and Ethics as Guides. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 128–141.Google Scholar
  8. Chadwick, R.: 1998, 'Gene Therapy', in: H. Kuhse and P. Singer (eds.), A Companion to Bioethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 189–197.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, A.: 1999, 'The Genetic Dissection of Complex Traits', in: V. Launis, J. Pietarinen and J. Räikkä (eds.), Genes and Morality: New Essays. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, pp. 103–119.Google Scholar
  10. Den Hartogh, G.: 1998, 'The Slippery Slope Argument', in: H. Kuhse and P. Singer (eds.), A Companion to Bioethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 280–290.Google Scholar
  11. Elias, S. and G.J. Annas: 1992, 'Somatic and Germ-Line Gene Therapy', in: G.J. Annas and S. Elias (eds.), Gene Mapping: Using Law and Ethics as Guides. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 142–154.Google Scholar
  12. Gelehrter, T.D and F.S. Collins: 1990, Principles of Medical Genetics. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  13. Govier, T.: 1982, 'What's Wrong with Slippery Slope Arguments?', Canadian Journal of Philosophy 12, 303–316.Google Scholar
  14. Hansen, B.S.: 1996, 'Something Rotten in the State of Denmark: Eugenics and the Ascent of the Welfare State', in: G. Broberg and N. Roll-Hansen (eds.), Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, pp. 9–76.Google Scholar
  15. Harris, J.: 1993, 'Is Gene Therapy a Form of Eugenics?', Bioethics 7, 178–187.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Heise, D.R.: 1975, Causal Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  17. Hietala, M., A. Hakonen, A.R. Aro, P. Niemelä, L. Peltonen and P. Aula: 1995, 'Attitudes Toward Genetic Testing among the General Population and Relatives of Patients with a Severe Genetic Disease: A Survey from Finland', American Journal of Human Genetics 56, 1493–1500.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hietala, M.: 1996, 'From Race Hygiene to Sterilization: The Eugenics Movement in Finland', in: G. Broberg and N. Roll-Hansen (eds.), Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, pp. 195–258.Google Scholar
  19. Hoedemaekers, R. and H. ten Have: 1999, 'Genetic Health and Genetic Disease', in: V. Launis, J. Pietarinen and J. Räikkä (eds.), Genes and Morality: New Essays. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, pp. 121–143.Google Scholar
  20. Holtug, N.: 1993, 'Human Gene Therapy: Down the Slippery Slope?', Bioethics 7, 402–419.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Holtug, N.: 1998, 'Creating and Patenting New Life Forms', in: H. Kuhse and P. Singer (eds.), A Companion to Bioethics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 206–214.Google Scholar
  22. Häyry, H.: 1994, 'How to Assess the Consequences of Genetic Engineering?', in: A. Dyson and J. Harris (eds.), Ethics and Biotechnology. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 144–156.Google Scholar
  23. Juengst, E.T.: 1997, 'Can Enhancement Be Distinguished from Prevention in Genetic Medicine?', The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22, 125–142.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lamb, D.: 1988, Down the Slippery Slope: Arguing in Applied Ethics. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  25. Lippman, A.: 1992, 'Led (Astray) by Genetic Maps: The Cartography of the Human Genome and Health Care', Social Science and Medicine 35, 1469–1476.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mackie, J.L.: 1975, 'Causes and Conditions', in: E. Sosa (ed.), Causation and Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–38.Google Scholar
  27. Marteau, T., S. Michie, H. Drake and M. Bobrow: 1995, 'Public Attitudes Towards the Selection of Desirable Characteristics in Children', Journal of Medical Genetics 32, 796–798.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGleenan, T.: 1995, 'Human Gene Therapy and Slippery Slope Arguments', Journal of Medical Ethics 21, 350–355.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Moseley, R.: 1991, 'Commentary: Maintaining the Somatic/ Germ-Line Distinction: Some Ethical Drawbacks', The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16, 641–647.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Neri, D.: 1998, 'Eugenics', in: R. Chadwick (ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, vol. 2. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 161–173.Google Scholar
  31. Paul, S.: 1997, 'Genetic Testing: Sliding Down the Slippery Slope?', Biomedical Ethics 2, 69–73.Google Scholar
  32. Pitt, J.C.: 1987, 'The Autonomy of Technology', in: P.T. Durbin (ed.), Technology and Responsibility. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 99–114.Google Scholar
  33. Proctor, R.N.: 1992, 'Genomics and Eugenics: How Fair is the Comparison?', in: G.J. Annas and S. Elias (eds.), Gene Mapping: Using Law and Ethics as Guides. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–93.Google Scholar
  34. Rachels, J.: 1986, The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Reiss, M.J. and R. Straughan: 1996, Improving Nature? The Science and Ethics of Genetic Engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Resnik, D.: 1994, 'Debunking the Slippery Slope Argument Against Human Germ-Line Gene Therapy', The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19, 23–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Stich, S.P.: 1978, 'The Recombinant DNA Debate', Philosophy and Public Affairs 7, 187–205.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Trianosky, G.W.: 1978, 'Rule-Utilitarianism and the Slippery Slope', The Journal of Philosophy 75, 414–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van der Burg, W.: 1991, 'The Slippery Slope Argument', Ethics 102, 42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van der Burg, W.: 1998, 'Slippery Slope Arguments', in: R. Chadwick (ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, vol. 4. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 129–142.Google Scholar
  41. Walters, L. and J.G. Palmer: 1997, The Ethics of Human Gene Therapy. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Walton, D.N.: 1992, Slippery Slope Arguments. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  43. Weatherall, D.J.: 1988, 'The Slow Road to Gene Therapy', Nature 331, 13–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams, B.: 1985, 'Which Slopes are Slippery?', in: M. Lockwood (ed.), Moral Dilemmas in Modern Medicine. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 126–137.Google Scholar
  45. Wood-Harper, J.: 1994, 'Manipulation of the Germ-Line: Towards Elimination of Major Infectious Diseases?', in: A. Dyson and J. Harris (eds.), Ethics and Biotechnology. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 121–143.Google Scholar
  46. Zimmerman, B.K.: 1991, 'Human Germ-Line Therapy: The Case for Its Development and Use', The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16, 593–612.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Veikko Launis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations