Bioethical dilemmas. (Letters).(Letter to the Editor)

SIR: Russell Blackford's review (May 2001) of Margaret Somerville's recent book The Ethical Canary was for me a disappointing critique, the more so because the issues Somerville raises are important.

Mr Blackford calls Dr Somerville a "Neo-Luddite" as a means of disparaging her view that humans are special, and that a deep respect for human life must underlie our judgments in areas of ethical (medical and legal) uncertainty. While I do not wholly agree with Dr Somerville, I do not perceive her as a Luddite. Her view on humanness is strong, consistent, coherent, and shared by many others. It is certainly defensible, especially as the basis of an ethical address. To sneer at it as Mr Blackford does is to dismiss an argument that, for many, holds great currency. Given the uncertainty most of us have over the appropriate responses to a number of bioethical dilemmas, the cavalier dismissal of a consistent and widely held view is inappropriate.

In his review Mr Blackford identifies Dr Somerville's logical starting point as a respect bordering on reverence for the human genetic formulation, and the reproductive process. This is, in fact, her end point. One of the strongest elements of her book, for me, is the order of its presentation. In all the cases she presents, and in the issues she discusses, Somerville presents the facts of ...