And,
perhaps, most remarkable has been the rise of a novel expertise of
'bioethics.'" (Rose, 6)
This is the subject which commands perhaps the greatest importance in
Rose's text, striking relevance into every other aspect of the debate by
suggesting that this essentially subjective lens has come to dominate a
field traditionally ruled by empiricism. To this point, optimization has
been distinctly impacted by this false or self-proclaimed sense of somatic
expertise.
Indeed, in his dealing throughout the text with this issue of
optimization, Rose finds that it generally applies to all debates today,
whether relating to the ability to manipulate genetic materials
preemptively or to the interest in controlling various conditions or
'abnormalities' through the use of drug treatment. The result is that new
opportunities to alter the course of medical deterioration or 'abnormality'
have created questions about that which should be considered desirable. As
Rose shows, to those who would consider optimization to be largely a matter
of taking to their logical next evolutionary step all apparent avenues of
progress. Rose indicates that "their proposition is that we are on the
cusp of a new age, in which we are no longer content with the restoration
of sickened bodies and souls to their organic, vital norms. In this new
age, it seems, we are able to reshape key aspects of the functioning of our
bodies and souls more or less at will." (Rose, 97-98)
Of course, Rose contends this with the understanding that there are a
great many who would view such unbridled innovation as potentially
extremely dangerous and discrediting of the sanctity of human life. This
produces the outcome of his discussion on optimization, which pleads for
balance in effecting policy. It is clear that Rose enters the discussion
without the prejudices that often account for religious, political or
ideological obstruction where bioethical debate is concerned. Though this
allows him to endorse an optimization which allows for the procession of
technological and biomedical evolution...
Namely, the various obstacles to
achieving any kind of consensus on the subject will often be derived from
deeply entrenched native views on both sides.
The result is the realization through consideration of this text that
some degree of resolution will never truly be achieved. Moreover, it also
demonstrates that Rose is inherently biased toward the type of progressive
technological and scientific innovation that would be considered anathema,
even blasphemy, to so many who have interjected loudly on the subject.
This allows his work to resonate with those already camped on his side of
the discussion but also tends to cause it a shortfall from its proposed
ambition to invoke balance and compromise. Ultimately, the conversation on
optimization demonstrates, as an example of this shortcoming, that Rose is
essentially dismissive of those whose bioethical expertise have caused them
to reject the prospects of innovation in favor of moral turpitude. To this
point, Rose inserts the most important aspect of his opinion into the
conversation of moral dogma, a matter which he argues has adversely
impacted the speed of innovation for people in the medical and scientific
fields.
Based on this clear position on the matter, the outcome of his study
is Rose's endorsement of biomedicine as the way forward, seeking only to
use the objections raised by its opponents to shepherd the process
ethically and responsibly. Though it is certain that this type of balance
would be of little consolation to those viewing an ethical conflict in
something such as stem-cell research, for instance. However-and Rose's
perspective indicates this to be the far more important accomplishment-this
balance would likely prove most beneficial to the improvement of medical
options for the bettering and lengthening of human life.
Works Cited:
Rose, N.S. (2006). The Politics of Life Itself. Princeton University
Press.
