Medical Ethics On The Subject Of Life Extension (Essay Sample)

The History of Life Extension, Proponents and Opponents
Name:
Institution:
Instructor:
Date:
Introduction
The search for life extension is not new to us. Before modern times, proponents for life extension were classified into two broad eras (Brad, Jayne & Wayne, 2010). From the 16th-18th Century, scientists were intensely involved in prolonging the lives and strength of the elderly; they held that senescence was a moment of substantial worth. From 19th C to the early 20th C, nevertheless, anti-age activists largely described old age as a time to be dreaded and scorned, formulating myriad processes to disregard it completely (Brad, Jayne & Wayne, 2010). While having some little similar concepts with the supporters of the early modern age, the modern anti-age movement reflects many of the notions of the life extension activists of a hundred years ago. Both sets not only view old-age as an infection to be eliminated via injections and surgery but also feel that old age comprises of a huge economic load. These perceptions disclose that the new anti-age drive, just like its early 20th C predecessor, is grounded on more than meek hair dyes, hormones, and nutrition.
Proponents of Longevity
Proponents of longevity build their argument on two simple points. The first one is that if something is exceptional, then much of it is healthier than less of it (The New York Times, 2017). Their second argument is that if people desire the ends, they should also desire the means. Their case starts by the remarks that life, as we all acknowledge, is good and that enduring to experience its goodness calls for physical existence. Dead persons fail to appreciate the goodness of human survival. This is the reason why nearly nobody desires to pass away and why almost all attempts of life-saving are advocated. People can agree to take the abstract notion of dying sometime in the future, but when it comes to actual circumstances and prompt decisions, they rarely want to castoff salvage operations and emergency services. Lifesaving and longevity go, nevertheless, hand in hand (Taylor & Francis, 2014). An individual whose life is saved from perishing will live to see tomorrow. Equally, an individual whose life is extended will live to see the beauty of tomorrow. This is an indefinite moment in the imminent, though we all have every motive to be certain that an individual would be as hesitant to perish on that moment as he would be to pass away right now. Longevity is also lifesaving, and hence it ought to be regarded just as rescue and emergency care services.
Opponents of Longevity
Opponents of longevity agree that life, as we all acknowledge, is good. They express, nevertheless, the sweetness of lives contrarily to their rivals and argue that social endurance rather than biological existence is essential to human presence (Camb Q Health Ethics, 2013). Individuals require societies, traditions, and principles to thrive, and societies, backgrounds, and cultures, in turn, require structural steadiness and historical evolution to uphold their liveliness. The steadiness required can just be created by the contemporary generations passing on their customs and roles to their children. If people live forever, they will be unable to pass on their customs and roles they hold in the society to their successors, and this will intrude customs and their connectedness. Considerable longevity is undesirable since it would lead to the eradication of humanity as we all acknowledge (Cryonics Magazine, 2011).
Analyzing the two Concepts
But what would be erroneous with the death of humanity as we all acknowledge it? This is the unavoidable reaction from the proponents of longevity. Yes, it is true, they agree, that with technological advancements and modification in human guiding principles and other ways of life can and will turn out to be history. But new customs will arise, and humans can generate some, and most likely post-human, identities (Rosa, 2013). People tend to imagine that our contemporary lives are improved than the lives of our predecessors since we have independence, consensus, toothpaste, and sanitation. Is there any motive to cling to, then, that post-humans would not choose their lives and leave ours? According to this way of reasoning, stalling development is not an indicator of functional concern but an indicator of irrational fearfulness (Pew Research Center, 2013).
What is the actual motive behind longevity? When individuals try to lengthen their earthly survival indeterminately, the ultimate motive appears to be immortality (Gerontol, 2004). But then, protectors of caution feel that the concept of immortality can’t be condensed to biological longevity. The aim of life extension is, they argue, eventually a hunt for divine existence, an effort to achieve beyond this-and-now. Academicians and researchers have recognized, as possible objectives for this hunt, accomplishments like flawless love, ultimate knowledge, and spiritual wholeness (Leigh, 2004). None of them can, yet, be secured solely by staying for several years. This is the reason why challengers of biomedical gerontology strongly argue that our finest (secular) strategy of exceeding our influence into our future is, rather ordinarily, procreation. Bearing kids will empower our genetic heritage to endure even after we have passed away, and raising them up to pick up our ways of longevity will donate to the continual subsistence of our customs. Biologically, longevity would simply affect with the natural sequence of cohorts and their positions in the society and roles.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the aim of this essay has been to analyze three perceptions on the essence of life and its longevity, and this has been achieved. The first (“more is better”) concept affirms that life is a thread of encounters. When these encounters are good, life becomes sweet, and it is necessary to remain in it. Considerable longevity by advances like biomedical gerontology brings val...