I argued that when a person’s biological and chronological age differs, she could be allowed to change her legal age so that it corresponds with her biological rather than chronological age because doing so moves us closer to accurately measuring what chronological age is intended to measure. In an article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, I started this academic discussion by outlining an argument for the legal age change. These results indicate that epigenetic clocks relate strongly to a process that causes biological aging. It has been shown that epigenetic clocks predict all-cause mortality in later life better than chronological age. Other research has shown the predictive utility of biological age for risk of disease for every 5 years older a woman is in biological age than chronological age, her risk of breast cancer increases 15%. For instance, major depression has been associated with higher epigenetic aging in blood as measured by DNA methylation patterns, suggesting that patients with major depression are biologically older than their corresponding chronological age. Īrguably, epigenetic clocks, that measure DNA methylation in blood, are currently the most accurate and promising estimates of determining biological age. For instance, a multibiomarker index of adult’s biological age outperformed their chronological age in predicting subsequent increased and clinically significant depressive symptoms. Some estimates of biological age predict mortality or onset of age-related diseases more accurately than chronological age. But now, suppose the person’s biological age turns out to be 50, why should her legal age correspond to her chronological rather than biological age? Many rights and duties depend on our official age, so how old we are, legally, is an important question that needs careful and detailed discussions by bioethicists, medical doctors, biologists and legal scholars among others.Īlthough little consensus exists on how exactly our biological age should be determined, different estimates have been proposed and used with promising results. For example, a person chronologically 70, is by law, 70 years old. Currently, legal age, the age we have according to the law, always corresponds with chronological age. The distinction between biological and chronological age could have significant implications on how we should understand legal age. Recent developments in epigenetics suggest that our epigenome – the chemical changes that happen above our DNA sequence – might be the key to understanding and calculating human biological aging. How fast our cells deteriorate depends on various factors: our genes and our lifestyle choices such as eating and exercising habits. Whereas chronological age increases at the same rate for everyone, biological age does not. While chronological age refers to the actual amount of time a person has existed, biological age refers to epigenetic alteration and DNA methylation which express on how able and functioning she is and whether she has diseases related to old age. In the fields of gerontology and anti-aging medicine, there is a commonly used distinction between biological and chronological age, which can be used as a base for claims of legal age change. Since compared to chronological age biological age indicates more accurately what matters, such as functioning ability, should legal age change be allowed, if our aging process could be significantly decelerated or our biological age accurately measured? However, there are people, for example, transhumanists, who think we should strive to stop biological aging and pursue eternal youth. The Dutch court rejected Ratelband’s appeal and many think he was not serious in his request in the first place. Therefore, he claimed, he should be entitled to change his official age. Ratelband claimed he has the body of a 50-year-old man and that he identifies as being younger than he currently is. When that happens, shouldn’t our legal age be based on our biological rather than chronological age since biological age is a better indication on how able and well-functioning we actually are?ĭutchman Emile Ratelband (age 69 at the time) recently made headlines by wanting to change his birth date to 20 years later than the date he was born. But the results from epigenetics research imply that it may soon be possible to calculate a person’s biological age accurately. Currently chronological age is used as a proxy for how well people function. The distinction between biological and chronological age could have significant implications for how we should understand our legal age. Recent developments in epigenetics suggest that our epigenome-the chemical changes that happen above our DNA sequence-might be the key to understanding and calculating human biological aging. In the fields of gerontology and anti-aging medicine, there is a commonly used distinction between biological and chronological age.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |