In a controversial paper, two bioethics professors at Western Michigan University explored a highly contentious question: could intentionally spreading a debilitating meat allergy be a morally obligatory act? Published in the journal Bioethics, their paper, “Beneficial Bloodsucking,” examines the moral implications of promoting alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a tick-borne illness that causes a severe allergic reaction to meat.
Alpha-gal syndrome is principally transmitted by the bite of the lone star tick. When the tick transmits a sugar molecule called alpha-gal into a person’s bloodstream, it can trigger an allergic reaction to red meats such as beef, pork, or lamb. Symptoms can range from hives and gastrointestinal distress to life-threatening anaphylaxis. However, the professors’ paper claims that AGS has “no significant negative effects on human health (so long as one avoids eating meat).”
The authors, Dr Parker Crutchfield and Dr Blake Hereth, present a conditional argument, stating that if eating meat is morally wrong, then preventing the spread of AGS is also morally impermissible. They argue that AGS acts as a “moral bioenhancer” by motivating people to stop eating meat. Their argument posits that an action is “strongly pro tanto obligatory” — a philosophical term meaning an act is required unless outweighed by stronger moral reasons against it — if it improves the world, doesn’t violate rights, and promotes virtuous behavior. The authors state, “if eating meat is morally impermissible, then efforts to prevent the spread of tickborne AGS are also morally impermissible.”
The paper sparked a backlash online, with some critics interpreting it as a call for the intentional spread of the illness. In response, Dr Crutchfield clarified that the paper is a hypothetical ethical framework, not an endorsement of spreading the illness. He told The College Fix, “No,” when asked if the paper advocates for the intentional spread of the illness, and also mentioned, “I’m not a vegetarian. I’m not even a vegan,” to address assumptions about his personal diet.
Critics like Dr H Sterling Burnett of the Heartland Institute argue that the paper’s premise is flawed because it fails to adequately defend the claim that eating meat is morally wrong. Burnett calls the argument “morally abhorrent,” saying it is never right to promote a disease that harms people, and he concludes that this type of philosophical argument “gives philosophy and the study of ethics a bad name.”
The paper connects to the larger climate change debate, as some researchers have linked livestock to greenhouse gas emissions and have advocated for reduced meat consumption. Other proposals include taxing meat to encourage a shift toward more sustainable diets. This context highlights the growing public interest in the environmental impacts of food choices.
The discussion is particularly timely because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that alpha-gal syndrome cases are on the rise in the United States. This is partly due to the expanding range of the lone star tick, which is influenced by factors like climate change and land use patterns.
What do you think about this “thought experiment?” Let us know in the comments section.
- Professors’ paper about spreading tick-borne meat allergy in humans prompts backlash — The College Fix
- Beneficial Bloodsucking — Bioethics
I think if you don’t know about Alpha Gal then you don’t need to speak on it! There is ALOT more to this than what you think. Not only not eating meat you can’t have anything that is derived from animals ( milk, cheese etc) if your food is cross contaminated you can go into anaphylaxis shock. I feel like doctors don’t know a lot about this, so the people that have this learn on there on. It is not fun to feel nauseous and throwing up a lot of the time. Scared that your throat may close up and having to use your epi pen or go to the ER. The pain of joints that hurt. So before you make comments on a subject please talk to people that have it! You may learn alot!!!
This reminds me of why I hated Philosophy Language and Logic in college. When two “facts” are equivalent therefore new fact, rarely works in actuality. Our world is not unilateral,
rather in the real world there are multiple factors that contribute to decisions.
The moral argument above is short sighted as it only looks at the life of the cow. It doesn’t value the Alpha-Gal patients’ life or quality of life. For Fume reactive patients human contact is greatly limited, because so many products in our environment are made from mammals and thier byproducts. In order to avoid reactions, fume reactive individuals are basically living a life surrounded by the few if any individuals willing to completely change all products, food, etc. This can be best described as surviving. The physical and mental impacts on an individual with Alpha Gal Syndrome are still just starting to be researched.
The statement that ” AGS has no negative effects as long as the person does not eat meat” shows that the author knows very little about Alpha gal allergy. It changes your life in ways you cannot imagine unless you actually have it. It’s not that simple!
Disappointing from two men with “Dr” in front of their names. Clearly they know next to nothing about Alpha-Gal. Oh how I wish all I had to do was stop eating meat. Instead, I have had to change face wash, toothpaste, shampoo, body wash. Let’s not even talk about challenges with medications because so many contain mammal. Oh, and the struggle with safe products at the dentists office. Do they even realize we cannot have things like gelatin, the regular flu shot and other vaccines? We just had a local guy find out he had because he was given anti-venom after copperhead bite and went into anaphylaxis. Thankfully an on staff Dr was familiar with AGS and order the blood test…BINGO!!!! It is SOOOO much more than “do not eat meat!” I was kept overnight following anaphylaxis from dairy reaction; they were concerned I was going to have a cardiac event. I typically react with a spike in BP and pulse; I have to carry two epi pens. Oh yea, fume reactions….that’s a real thing. Educate yourselves before you talk, write, or speak about AGS.
Modern philosophy is corrupt to the core. This garbage evil paper and its authors is just another example of that.