Read this article here.
Some fascinating, and rather difficult, ethical questions that must be pondered for long-term space missions.
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This blog is dedicated to ethical debates regarding Just War Theory and the Profession of Arms as well as other issues of philosophical and ethical interest. Its primary contributors are future Air Force Officers currently attending the Air Force Academy. The views expressed in this blog are solely the opinions of the individual authors and not of the United States Air Force nor the Department of Defense.
17 comments:
This is a subject that I have actually considered for a long time. I am glad that NASA is finally thinking about this stuff. I certainly think it is justifiable to cut a person off if they are seriously hampering the mission or if they put the lives of the rest of the crew at risk. For example, if someone is using up all of the morphine, anti-biotics, etc and the prognosis does not look good, then the person should not be allowed to use up all the supplies for the detriment of the rest of the crew. Also, if the person is badly hurt and is preventing the crew from doing anything on the surface, all efforts should be made to take care of the person while still doing most of the mission, but at a certain point, the person might not be worth the effort. I know that sounds terrible, but unfortunately, the mission commander needs to be thinking of the good of the mission and the safety of the rest of the crew. The astronauts will be aware of the risks before signing up on the mission and should already realize that their life is in extraordinary jeopardy on one of those missions. I am not about to state where the line between saving and not saving is; that should be for the crew to decide with all the facts in hand, but I will say that I think it is justifiable to cut someone off after all reasonable efforts have been made to save them. NASA astronauts will have to assume this risk if they go; I'd do it.
Maybe they should just make a requirement to become a space traveler to sign a little piece of paper that states - "If I am using mission essential supplies and I will more than likely (65%) not survive anyways, I allow my team to stop giving me supplies."
I do not understand the point of the whole sex in space problem. Wouldn't the travelers be clean before allowed to go to space, so what is the risk?
I want to go to Mars.
Looking at this issue from a utilitarian point of view, it is a simple answer in that whatever choice produces the greater good should be taken. If an astronaut is using up supplies and will most likely die, than the plug should be pulled for the greater good. For the most part I agree with this view considering the extremes of the situation. These dilemmas and any more foreseen issues should be discussed and decided on before the mission so the astronauts know and agree to what they will be getting themselves into.
I am going to have to agree with Mr. Smith on this one. I think we need to use caution though - who decides the probability of whether or not someone has a good chance of surivivng/dying? Unless we send medical physicians with all our space missions... but thats tough to make happen.
I dont know if i would like some joe-schmo who knows how to fly the space shuttle decide whether or not i could survive the whole ordeal... or maybe thats a risk that would need to be taken by mission personnel. It sounds like more paperwork to me...
That article made me smile. I think its just funny, coming up with formal policies on such topics. It makes me wonder if the Pilgrims from Europe wrote up some kind of policy when they first came here . . . actually no it doesn't because its just rediculous. Just like how they said in the article about such topics being taboo, no one wants to deal with it until it comes up. And then if and when such a situation finally did come up, i feel the most logical approach would be that of the strict utilitarian. i just say what others don't want to have to.
I agree that these issues need to be settled far before any missions to mars occur. If paperwork needs to be signed in order to protect the mission then so be it. However, from a philosophical point of view, we are talking about someone's life here. I don't see how us landing on mars is worth the life of a human being. We will accomplish nothing but publicity by reaching Mars. As long as the lives of the crew members are not at risk, every measure should be taken to keep that person alive. That life is much more important than the mission in this case.
I think one way to alleviate many of these issues would be to research new and better technologies. With new propulsion systems which cut the travel time drastically, the likelihood of a terminal illness arising is reduced. With improved communications equipment, the 30 minute delay could be removed, thus giving astronauts direct access to medical or technical professionals if the need arises. I do agree that these issues need to be addressed. One such way to address them is to research more in order to reduce the time the astronauts are cut off and exposed to high risks.
Seeing that I think pulling the plug on someone, even when on earth, is acceptable if there is not chance of survival, this debate is easy for me. In this case there is still not only no chance for survival but it also puts others at risk. The astronauts know that they are accepting these risks when going into space, and I would hope that they would not be selfish to the point that they want to risk putting the others in danger.
I suppose something to consider is if the patient is not terminal ill, but just lacks the available medical care there on the space shuttle, and if by letting him use supplies, the rest of the crew actually may be able to survive but it will be a close call, then what? Do you risk it? Do you risk saving one at the expense of risking others? To answer this I would propose that you leave the decision up to the crew members who will be taking the risk in that situation, otherwise, pull the plug, and do what you can to save the rest of the people we’ve flung across the vastness of space, and try to maximize the odds that we get as many back as we can.
Astronauts know the risk that they sign up for with the job... they already should be ready for danger and be willing to take that risk or they should not be an astronaut. It seems stupid to kill everyone when only one person could die instead. If there is a chance that everyone could survive, then that should be done until it is evident that it is either one or all... The whole sex in space is pretty stupid. It would be completely against the best interest of the mission. If she were to get pregnant, then she might not even be able to do her part of the mission and who would walk her through the labor if she is still in space when the child is due, very likely since them mission would be about two years. She would have to take care of the baby and not even be able to do her job. I view that it is completely inappropriate to have sex in space.
Without a doubt astronauts will understand the risks of a mission to Mars before they sign up, they are not stupid people. There are currently about five astronauts with medical degrees and I don't see NASA not having one of them on board such a flight. So there would probably be someone capable of making a very educated decision about someone's ability to survive a life threatening situation. As a result it would be morally justifiable to cut off medical supplies to a sick astronaut if they were not able to recover; especially if they were a detriment to the crew and mission success.
Ok first of all, sex in space- the idea that a baby could be born in space would be too crazy for some person to pass up...secondly one word concerning relations in space and closed quarters: astronut.
Then back to the actual heart of the debate in terms of medical care and choosing survival...there was discussion in class of the sailor who had to kick people off the boat in order to ensure the majority survival, well that sailor later committed suicide because (assumingly) of his struggle with his actions. As an astronaut or mission commander, is the crew able to deal with the intellectual and emotional consequences of such actions?? I would be cautious to undertake such a task, but we are willing to make such decisions as they arise as officers in war, granted our medical facilities are much closer...
Bottom line is that the question is "Are the actions we are going to take in space whether moral or immoral worth the continuation of study?" which translates "is pursuit of study in an effort to reach some eudaimonia worth the ethical obstacles in the way?".
If someone dies or becomes critically ill in space, I think that the mission commander should make the call as to whether or not to let them die. If they have the extra supplies and are able to help someone, then up until it becomes a supply issue, the person should be helped. If they are running out of supplies and are on their last leg for survival, then the person should probably be let go. The problem with this issue is that unless someone is a sadistic bastard and wants another astronaut dead (ya know, because they are like diaper girl), they may have a problem with letting another comrade of theirs go.
Ha-Ha Holden..."astronut"
Those who wish to travel to mars have become astronauts by their own free will. They understand the risks associated with such a unique mission. NASA needs to make them well aware of the risks associated with the mission and if they want to proceed anyway then there needs to be a policy in place. This way there is a plan set if a situation like this is encountered.
The concept of space travel in general is a very intriguing but scary thing. Pilot's on a space mission have to realize that they are an expendable asset. If their health is something that will jeopardize the mission and most importantly the other members of the mission, then they have to be willing to accept what NASA eventuall puts forth. This might very well make a difference in the types of people that become astronauts in the future if they have ethical dilemmas.
The above comments that try to justify cutting the person off usually have to setup some "point" at which the man is hampering the mission too much. The consequentialists will just do a simple hedonic calculus and solve for the variable. 3rd grade math. However, the deontologists of the world have to point and lauch at the arbitrariness of the line. Who's to say where to draw the line and is there a correct point at which to draw the line? I think the arbitrariness of the line at which the mission outweighs the man is indivative of an incorrect position.
during the apollo 11 mission, president nixon actually had a speech ready in case the engine didnt go off and the plan was to cut off all communnications with the astronauts to "leave them to die in peace" you can actually read the speech at the national archives, but the question i had was whether or not the astronauts knew about it before hand. . .
Post a Comment