View
220
Download
3
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Technological inroads into the beginnings of human life: Social, ethical and religious repercussionsD Gareth Jones
Introduction
‘Human life is sacred from conception’
Regarded by some as foundational for Christian witness
Propounded with assurance; biblical concept?
Sacredness of human life from first glimmerings (what does this claim mean?)
Introduction
‘Human life is sacred from conception’
Is this position necessary to keep in check the rampant run-away forces of modern science?
Should our worldview depend upon it?
Many accept the sacredness-conception combination as basic dogma
Should it be mark of faithfulness to Christian fundamentals?
Relevance to reproductive technology debates
Introduction
Multifaceted challenges
Biblical teaching
Place of scientific concepts in theological thinking
Pastoral issues
The ARTs in historical context
Manufacturing Humans: The
Challenge of the New Reproductive
Technologies
The ARTs in historical context
Scientific developments continue to outstrip the ability of our ethical (and theological) systems to cope with them
Modern medicine – hopes; perils
What room is left for God and faith?
Increasing life expectancy and overcoming infertility – more dependent on technology than God’s grace
The ARTs in historical context
1989 > 400,000 children born via IVF Today c. 4 million
Technological developments
development of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI); enabling older women to have children
health status of IVF children; rare genetic ‘imprinting’ disorders
The ARTs in historical context
1989 - preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) developed; selection of embryos; eugenics?
1998 – embryonic stem cells first derived from human embryos; dominate debate on ARTs especially in theological circles
The ARTs in historical context
1997 - birth of Dolly (first cloned mammal)
Dire warnings predicting the end of humanity as we know it
The ARTs in historical context
1987 - therapeutic or research cloning unknown
Today- seen as the way forward for regenerative medicine’; threat to human dignity?
The ARTs in historical context
1987 - chimeras and hybrids part of Greek mythology or science fiction
Today - serious science; vociferous objections by Christian groups to ‘inter-species embryos’
The ARTs in historical context
1980s - 8% of babies born at 23 weeks’ gestation and 40-45% of those born at 28 weeks survived
Today - 50% of babies born at 23 weeks survive and 80% of those born at 28 weeks
Responses to IVF in the mid-1980s
1984 - Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Warnock Report)
Human embryos have special status, but not equal to that of actual persons
Research on human embryos allowed up to 14 days
Responses to IVF in the mid-1980s
Infertility is condition meriting treatment
IVF and donor insemination are established treatments
Egg and embryo donation acceptable with provisos
Responses to IVF in the mid-1980s
Oliver O’Donovan, Begotten or Made? (1984)
“When we start making human beings we necessarily stop loving
them; . . . that which is made rather than begotten becomes something that we have at our disposal, not
someone with whom we can engage in brotherly fellowship.”
Responses to IVF in the mid-1980s
“I do not know how to think of an IVF child except . . . as the creature of the doctors
who assisted at her conception.”
Oliver O’Donovan (1984)
Responses to IVF in the mid-1980s
Thomas Torrance, Test-Tube Babies (1984)
“What is at stake is nothing less than the future of the human race, but what
also at stake is the integrity of the scientific and moral conscience. . .
Medical science has brought us to an ultimate boundary beyond which a civilised and God-fearing society
committed to the sanctity of marriage and the structure of the human family,
may not go.”
Responses to IVF in the mid-1980s
A number of church bodies took an uncompromisingly negative view of IVF
Pontifical Academy for Life (2004)ARTs “constitute an unworthy method for the coming forth of a new life, whose beginning
depends . . . in large measure on the technical action of third parties outside the couple and takes place in a context totally
separated from conjugal love.”
Responses to IVF in the mid-1980s
Up to 14 days human embryos not entitled to same respect and protection as embryo implanted in uterus
Accept use of surplus IVF embryos in research
Board of Social Responsibility of the General Synod of the Church of England (1985) supported most of the recommendations of Warnock Report
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
The science has moved on dramatically
Is theological debate of 2010 different from that of 1987?
Little has changed; those who accepted IVF tend to accept PGD etc; those who saw IVF as entering illicit divine territory are appalled at subsequent developments
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
Roman Catholicism
Donum Vitae (1987) – IVF rejected because of use of artificial means to achieve conception
Dignitas Personae (2008) – does not challenge artificiality; human life is personal from conception onwards; protects dignity of embryo
Other reproductive techniques rejected on a variety of grounds
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
Roman Catholicism
ICSI - domination of technology
Embryo freezing – embryos may be harmed
Freezing of oocytes – permits ARTs
PGD – eugenics
Embryo destruction – injustice
Embryo donation – illicit family relationships
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
Shannon and Walter, The New Genetic Medicine (2003)
Willing to wrestle with new scientific findings
Individual not present until 2-3 weeks after fertilization
“[w]hile the preimplantation embryo contains the appropriate genetic information for the organism’s
development, that genetic information is not necessarily associated with a specific individual
and cannot, therefore, claim moral privilege through such an association. The genetic
uniqueness is associated with what is common to all – human nature – not a particular individual
because such an entity does not yet exist”
Shannon and Walter (2003)
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
The early embryo is valuable due to its human genetic code and genetic uniqueness
The preimplantation embryo has premoral value
Allow embryo research (including embryonic stem cell research and therapy; therapeutic cloning)
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
Seek to reinterpret traditional theological viewpoints in the light of contemporary scientific understanding
Do not wish to weaken the religious tradition, but speak in contemporary terms
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
Celia Deane-DrummondConcerned about the gap opening between official pronouncements and pastoral care
Problems alleged without empirical assessment
Alternative approach: recovery of prudence within ethic of feminist care
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
Ann Marie MealeyCriticizes outdated physicalist version of natural law, and excessive concern with ‘eugenic mentality’
Should lay groundwork for responding todevelopments and protecting ‘common good’
All three contributions wish to make Christian faith more relevant in contemporary biomedical debates
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
Protestantism
Hostility towards ARTs often taken as representing the Christian view
Hui, At the Beginning of Life: Dilemmas in
Theological Ethics (2002)
Evangelical, and intensely conservative
The human soul is present at conception
Concerned that science has replaced God
opposition to any technological inroads into the reproductive process
ARTs force God to accept the child when he has not given that gift of life
human embryo research is unacceptable
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
Science and theology are staring one another in the face
Many evangelical exponents of prohibitionist stances; embryo protection framework
Stephen Bellamy (2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill)
Populist evangelical literature opposes PGD, tissue typing, cybrid and hybrid embryos
Complete protection from fertilization onwards
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
Absolutist view of status of in vitro embryo
No unanimity on IVF
Cautionary approach; alternative evangelical views ignored
Pastoral concerns: apparent certainty and rigidity of absolutist views creates unnecessary heartache for those faced with infertility
Impression that there is only one orthodox evangelical view
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
“We […] must be unashamed and unafraid for […] unbiased medical technology is on our side. Time is on our side. The Bible is on our side. God
is on our side. And if God be for us, who an be against us?”
Other views are ignored
Christian position is prohibitionist one
Kendall (2002)
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
“Too many Christians turn a blind eye to the destruction of embryos in IVF and to the harsh and grotesque reality that this technology also means the destruction of human life ”
IVF out of bounds for faithful Christians
Mohler (2008)
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
Ted Peters, Sacred Cells? Why Christians Should Support Stem Cell Research, 2008
Three contending frameworks: embryo protection human protection future wholeness
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
God’s eschatological call to become what we are destined to be
Gifts given us by God
Human dignity conferred by God; we are to confer it on others; relational in character
Future orientation: dignity is derived more from destiny than from origin
Conferring dignity on someone who does not yet experience it, is gesture of hope
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
Beneficence – what groups might benefit from embryo research?
Melding of divine action and human response
Dignity is not regarded as an automatic outworking of genetic characteristics
Theological framework – God’s love for all; eschatological hope based on God’s promises
The good of others in the community may trump the good of embryos
Responses to the ARTs post-2000
Exploring the borderlands
Traditional perspective: err on the side of caution
Technology intrudes into every facet of our existence
Do we have theological quibbles when we take a pill to subdue pain or bring blood pressure under control?
The quality of our lives is improved compared with 100 years ago
Exploring the borderlands
BUT
Some of the effects of the ARTS may be dehumanizing (note responses to Robert Edwards’s 2010 Nobel Prize)
Fragmentation of families
Deeply troubling commercial pressures
Problems due to instant gratification; serving one’s own interests; need to accept givenness and giftedness of our existence; lack of concern for poor and neglected
Exploring the borderlands
The development of ARTs is scientifically driven and their application is community driven
A Christian commitment should be directed at arguing for ways in which the technologies should be applied rather than in whether the technologies should or should not exist
See people in their wholeness and treat them accordingly: with respect, dignity and preciousness in God’s sight
Have to learn to live alongside those with different outlook from ours (including within Christian community)
Exploring the borderlands
“Just as you do not know how the breath comes to the bones in the mother’s womb, so you do
not know the work of God, who makes everything.”
Ecclesiastes 11: 5
Profound uncertainties
Perplexity of our beginnings is set to increase, not decrease
Addendum on the role of the Bible
Concepts not from Scripture
precautionary principle genetic uniqueness of embryodangers of procedurespopulation imbalancelack of cures from embryo research
Pragmatic and scientific
Addendum on the role of the Bible
Additional theological arguments:
Christian ethics based on God’s revelation Christian hope over medical interventionmade in God’s image all human life equally valuable Children special gift from God value of embryo determined by God’s grace God does not improve upon what he has already done
Addendum on the role of the Bible
Two characteristics:
open to competing interpretationsfail to provide specific options for bioethical practice
Different theological positions reflect differences in scientific understanding and interpretation as much as differences in theological worldviews
Changes in theological perspective following changes in the science?
Recommended