Allison Lastinger
A senior philosophy and biology major, Allison Lastinger is very interested in the field of bioethics and worked as an intern for WVU Hosptial?s Center for Health Ethics and Law under Dr. Alvin Moss. She serves as the Honors College Community Ambassador, the President of the Philosophy Club, and the Head Conference Planner of WVU?s first Undergraduate Philosophy Symposium. Her research in cancer cell biology and her studies in philosophy have led her to her passion: medicine and bioethics. She plans to attend WVU?s School of Medicine in the fall of 2007.
To answer this question, we must first agree what it is to ?alter nature.? I will define it as intervening with the processes that would occur were it not for the existence of human life. Why is it that we would not say that a beaver is altering nature when it builds a dam, but we would say that a building company is altering nature when it tears down a forest to build a shopping mall? What makes humans different from other animals? Humans have the capacity to make informed decisions based on complicated reasoning; humans are moral beings. They can see how their actions may affect nature; therefore, many believe that humans have an obligation to not act a certain way if they think that their actions could be destructive towards others or their environment.
I do not believe that humans should never alter nature. If we held ourselves to such standards, the human species would no longer exist. We could not pick fruit because that would be altering nature. In fact, I think that many times humans have moral obligations to alter nature. Because we have the ability to predict how our actions might affect others or the environment, we have a responsibility to ourselves, other species, and the Earth. If we know that planting more trees could help with global warming, we have an obligation to do so if there are no other competing needs. Similarly, I believe that if someone is in great pain and we know that giving them morphine will alleviate their pain, we have a moral obligation to help the person. I faced such questions during my internship with Dr. Alvin Moss, director of the WVU hospital?s Center for Health Ethics and Law. I shadowed him on palliative care consultations, where he and a palliative care nurse worked with dying patients and their families to treat pain and make important end-of-life decisions.
There is much controversy about the use of medical procedures to delay death and the treatment of pain during the dying process. Some people believe that it is wrong to use medicine to prolong life; they call it ?playing God.? Such people would have to argue that any decisions that humans make are attempts to play God because they are playing a role in determining their own futures instead of letting destiny take its course. A child should not make himself a peanut butter and jelly sandwich because he would be playing God. He should let nature take its course. According to such arguments, it would also be wrong to treat someone?s pain as they are dying. In some way, this would be ?unnatural.? I believe that these arguments are flawed because they rely on the problem we discussed above. It is wrong to say that humans should never alter nature. Instead, we should claim that humans should be held to higher standards than other animals because humans have the capacity to predict how their actions will affect others and their environment. Therefore, humans should make choices based on what they believe will have the best results for all parties involved. When we use medicine to delay death or to treat someone?s pain as they are dying, we should make the decision because it will be more constructive than destructive. I believe that in most cases the good of prolonging someone?s life so that they can enjoy a few more months with their family and come to terms with the end of their life far outweighs the bad of the medical costs and the stress of taking care of a dying loved one. Similarly, I believe that in most cases of pain treatment it is better to relieve someone?s suffering than to let them die in pain. Of course, there exist cases where it would be better not to ?alter nature? and to let things take their course. For example, if a dying patient were suffering but did not want to be put on pain medication because the drugs would inebriate her and make it impossible for her to say good-bye to her family and friends, she may choose not to take the pain medication. In this case, the patient believes that she will receive more good from being able to spend her remaining hours with her loved ones rather than in a state where she is comfortable but unable to tell her family and friends how much they mean to her. I think that humans have a moral obligation to make the best choices available to them. If they believe that more good would come from altering nature than not, then they should. The problem is that many times we forget that there are long-term consequences of our actions, and we seek immediate good instead of making the best decisions for our future. We should always think before we act and weigh the consequences of our action
