{"id":26187,"date":"2025-07-29T09:29:02","date_gmt":"2025-07-29T07:29:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.carnisostenibili.it\/?p=26187"},"modified":"2026-03-25T14:31:52","modified_gmt":"2026-03-25T12:31:52","slug":"beneficial-bloodsucking-when-bioethics-forgets-ethics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.carnisostenibili.it\/en\/beneficial-bloodsucking-when-bioethics-forgets-ethics\/","title":{"rendered":"Bioethics Without Ethics"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Animal rights activism masquerading as science reached new heights: it would be “morally obligatory” to distribute the tick that causes red meat allergies.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the paper “Beneficial Bloodsucking<\/a>“<\/em>, recently published in Bioethics<\/em>, the authors argue\u2014under the guise of philosophical rigour\u2014a deeply disturbing thesis: that deliberately infecting humans with a tick-borne syndrome<\/strong> (Alpha-Gal Syndrome) to make them intolerant to red meat<\/strong>, thereby reducing its consumption, is a legitimate<\/strong> moral act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their argument claims that, since meat consumption is morally wrong due to animal suffering, and since the infection induces a specific food aversion, infecting the population would serve as a “moral bioenhancer”<\/strong>\u2014a lesser evil compared to continuing meat-eating habits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Without the premise of “unavoidable suffering,” the entire argument collapses<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At first glance, given the outrageous nature of the proposal, one might mistake it for an intellectual provocation. But it is a provocation that found its way into a peer-reviewed academic journal<\/strong>, and therefore deserves a clear, well-founded, and unequivocal response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First and foremost, the paper’s entire reasoning rests on the ideological assumption<\/strong> that eating meat is morally reprehensible because it causes animal suffering. This is an extreme claim<\/strong>, disproven by years of research, legislation, and responsible livestock practices\u2014regularly documented on this site.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, we continually emphasise how modern European supply chains, particularly in Italy, adhere to stringent standards of animal welfare, health monitoring, traceability, and environmental sustainability<\/strong>. The very concept of “sacrifice”<\/strong>\u2014which we use in place of slaughter\u2014implies a system of ethical and technical norms that safeguards the animal throughout its productive life and regulates its end-of-life in ways that minimise suffering<\/strong>. Without the premise of “unavoidable suffering,” the entire argument collapses<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Deliberately infecting human beings is unacceptable<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is utterly unjustifiable to deliberately infect human beings<\/strong> under the pretext of preventing a practice\u2014meat consumption\u2014that is not morally unacceptable<\/strong> when properly regulated, as the authors claim. Ethics cannot be based on ideological images of the world<\/strong>, but must be grounded in verified facts, moral pluralism, and the protection of individual dignity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, the notion that it would be acceptable to deliberately infect part of the population<\/strong> to steer them away from meat is a clear violation of personal integrity<\/strong>. In no recognised legal or medical framework is it acceptable to inflict biological harm<\/strong> on an individual\u2014without consent<\/strong>\u2014for social or ideological purposes<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Such a proposal violates the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights<\/strong> (Articles 3 and 5), the Nuremberg Code<\/strong> (which prohibits all non-consensual medical treatment), and, crucially, the Oviedo Convention<\/strong>, along with modern bioethical guidelines\u2014principles the paper’s authors should have been well aware of, and which the journal should have reviewed before accepting the article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This bizarre proposal<\/strong> undermines individual autonomy<\/strong>, imposes an unjustifiable health risk<\/strong>, and normalises a deeply authoritarian view<\/strong>, in which the individual’s body is subordinated to an abstract goal<\/strong> imposed by others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


The rhetoric of the “moral bioenhancer” is one of the text’s most dangerous aspects<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The use of “lesser evil” rhetoric<\/strong>, dressed up in the new terminology of “moral bioenhancement”<\/strong>, is among the most dangerous elements in the entire piece. The history of ethical thought teaches us that it is not morally acceptable to sacrifice individuals<\/strong> for some supposedly higher end\u2014especially<\/strong> when that end is interpreted through ideological or one-sided lenses<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this case, it is considered acceptable to induce a food-related illness<\/strong>, which can carry serious health risks<\/strong>, to save animals from a fate that is already regulated, monitored, and humanised<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


No ethics, no bioethics\u2014just the “banality of evil”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The logic underlying these grotesque claims erases the moral proportionality between actions and consequences<\/strong>, and completely ignores the foundational values of any personalist ethics<\/strong>: dignity<\/strong>, integrity<\/strong>, and individual responsibility<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, the paper doesn’t merely suggest a dietary shift or promote cultural incentives\u2014it seeks to turn human beings into tools<\/strong>. In this view, the person loses intrinsic value<\/strong> and becomes a vehicle\u2014a sort of biological container to be modified<\/strong> to achieve an external objective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the very definition of what Hannah Arendt<\/strong> called the “banality of evil”<\/strong>\u2014not evil shouted from the rooftops, but evil disguised as technical rationality, moral efficiency, or optimised solutions<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, normalising such a proposal<\/strong> sets a disturbing cultural and political precedent<\/strong>: if we accept today that a person’s body can be altered to change their eating preferences<\/strong>, we may soon accept coercive treatments<\/strong> to reduce energy usage, modify reproductive choices, or reshape cognitive and behavioural inclinations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


An extreme form of moral engineering that undermines the foundations of bioethics itself<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, to endorse the idea that one can induce a disease to drive social change<\/strong> marks a dangerous slide<\/strong> toward a collectivist vision that annihilates the individual in the name of a cause<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This paper is not just an unfortunate provocation\u2014it is a proposal that, even as a theoretical hypothesis<\/strong>, undermines the very foundation of bioethics<\/strong>. It constitutes an extreme form of moral engineering<\/strong>, seeking to manipulate the human body<\/strong> to force behaviours deemed more ethical by the authors, based on ideological assumptions that are neither shared nor shareable among the general public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The very fact<\/strong> that a scholarly journal accepted this thesis demands an urgent and clear cultural response<\/strong>. Ethics is not coercion disguised as the common good<\/strong>. It is not the manipulation of bodies<\/strong>, nor the justification of violence<\/strong>, even when those proposing it believe they mean well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A sound, free, and human rights\u2013based ethical framework<\/strong> cannot\u2014and must not\u2014accept the idea that evil can be premeditated for the sake of a supposed greater good<\/strong>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[…]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":26188,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[958,2755],"tags":[6736,6738,6735,6732,6733,6737],"class_list":["post-26187","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-evolution-culture","category-featured","tag-alpha-gal-syndrome-2","tag-banality-of-evil","tag-beneficial-bloodsucking-2","tag-bioethics-2","tag-ethics","tag-red-meat-allergy"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t