The Ethics of Anti-Aging Therapy

The idea of extending life and immortality is nothing new. Countless myths and stories dating back to ages ago involve maintaining youth and avoiding death. However, within the past century or so, scientists have been working to make anti-aging medicine a reality. Thanks to biotechnology, this concept is taken very seriously and may become the god of all medical fields. Try to imagine the way health care works now being reversed. Rather than being diagnosed then treated for a given disease, we'd prevent most illnesses by keeping our cells young. As interesting and exciting as this sounds, the direction biogerontology is heading towards attracts plenty of controversy. We exist in a society where aging is feared and considered troublesome, but after all it is natural. What are the consequences of progressing with the approach that old age is "treatable"?
An article from the Hastings Center Report addresses the morals and repercussions if such medicine were to succeed. The divide is between the supportive scientists who claim "age reversal" will be attainable within ten years and those who deem it completely unnecessary. Ever since this field truly surfaced at the start of the twenty first century with some substantial support, other biogerontologists regard the idea of anti-aging treatment as non legitimate. The difference lies between those who pursue the "cure" of aging and those who are in the field simply to gain an understanding of how it works. Scientists who do not believe that aging is a disease question why we would try to prevent a stage of life from occurring.
On the other hand, the National Institute on Aging began a "Strategic Plan" in 2001, creating a research goal to slow aging and decrease its debilitating effects. Now a grey area is formed. Is it incorrect to refer to anti-aging drugs/therapies as medicinal? If old age isn't pathological in the first place then shouldn't it be considered "enhancement"? Completely disregarding this idea isn't smart in my opinion, keeping in mind that it is a fairly new field that can potentially help us discover ways to eradicate diseases like cancer. Improving the quality of life is a justified reason to move forward with research. However, biotechnology is only going to open more realms of morally questionable advances. As the authors stated in the article, the public will react to advertising based on their education and experience. It's risky to promote anti-aging substances to the general public while the field itself is in a fragile and elementary stage. How far can we take the ultimate goal of longevity before the meaning of life itself is totally changed?

Article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3528377?seq=1