An ethical assessment of anti-aging medicine.
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.
Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., USA. tm32@bulldog.georgetown.edu
Tom
T
Mackey
D000368:Aged; D000375:Aging; D000818:Animals; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005853:Geriatrics; D006801:Humans