In the New York Times article, an older scientist is faced with an ethical dilemma regarding his research at his job in a laboratory and his personal health. On one hand, he is working in a laboratory that is investigating early-onset Alzheimer’s disease genes and pioneering effective treatments. Based on the article, the researchers invented a gene-transfer method that stopped brain damage caused by the disease and restored cognitive function. On the other hand, he just received a diagnosis of early-stage Alzheimer’s disease from his doctor. As we all know, there is no cure for Alzheimer’s disease currently, or at least, no cure out on the market yet. Does this scientist have the right, given he will otherwise die of dementia, to give himself this new treatment before a clinical trial can even begin?
Ethical egoism is a theory of morality that states everyone should act in a way that promotes their own
…show more content…
This theory disregards the interests of others, unless their interests also serve your own. In the case of the scientist and his ethical dilemma, I believe ethical egoism would lead the scientist to take the experimental treatment, regardless of the effects on others. Based on what we currently know about the disease, if he did not take the experimental treatment, he will eventually die of dementia no matter what. However, if he took this experimental drug and it cured him or at least prolonged his diagnosis, that would be a much better outcome for the scientist, and thus, would be the decision an ethical egoist would make.
In my opinion, this scientist has the right to risk his own life for a potentially better outcome than nature has given him, being diagnosed with an incurable disease.