|
Bioethics: New Questions to New
Technologies
David VanDrunen, Ph.D.
First published in Evangelium, Vol.2, Issue
5.
While the basic moral responsibilities of Christians have not
changed through the ages, the circumstances under which
Christians make ethical decisions certainly have. A good example
of how cultural developments pose ever-new moral challenges is
the rise of bioethics.
Due to the amazing progress of medical technology over the
past decades, techniques now exist for creating, preserving, and
even ending human life that were unimaginable to previous
generations. Although many of the recent advances in medical
research provoke a sense of thankful wonder, especially for
those who have seen loved ones healed from otherwise fatal
diseases, the advance of knowledge has produced a host of
troubling moral questions. What makes the rise of bioethics
troubling for Christians? One reason is that Christians cannot
simply turn to Scripture to find ready-made answers to the
typical bioethics question. The biblical writers never discussed
cloning, genetic therapy, or “death with dignity.” Furthermore,
wrestling through such issues often requires detailed
understanding of scientific and biological processes that seem
quite inaccessible to the average person.
To make matters even more difficult, Christians often cannot
make bioethics decisions for themselves or loved ones merely as
private people. Instead, they must confront gut-wrenching
choices in consultation with nurses, doctors, and other
specialists who have their own professional guidelines to follow
and often do not share their patients’ moral or theological
convictions. As much as we might wish otherwise, Christians
cannot escape these moral challenges. Christians face
infertility, learn that their unborn children have genetic
abnormalities, and see aged parents held at the brink of death
by extraordinary medical techniques. Increasingly, Christians
are promised that suffering can be relieved and a prosperous
life promoted.
Few Christians alive today will be able to avoid making the
difficult decisions that arise from such promises. Furthermore,
the burden undoubtedly will be all the more heavy for pastors,
whose flocks will seek pastoral guidance from them as they face
their own decisions. In light of all these issues, how is the
twenty-first century Christian to think about bioethics? Making Bioethics Decisions
Before turning to a specific bioethics issue, it is helpful
first to consider some general guidelines. When confronting
difficult bioethics decisions, Christians initially must strive
to identify relevant theological truths. Though Scripture does
not speak specifically about contemporary bioethics, its
teaching does have important implications for it.
Perhaps most important are the biblical truths about human
nature, or anthropology. Scripture teaches that a human is both
body and soul, an affirmation that many people deny. This means
that we must never treat people as if their bodily well-being
were unimportant or physical illness merely a challenge to be
endured. Conversely, it also means that we must never treat
people as if their bodily well-being were the only thing that
matters or were simply an end in itself.
In addition, a biblical anthropology reminds us that every
human being is made in God’s image. This profound truth has many
implications for bioethics. At the very least, it compels us to
treat each person—even, and perhaps especially, the weak and
vulnerable—with the dignity and respect that befits one made in
the image of his Creator. Certainly another area of theology
important for bioethics is the biblical teaching on the nature
of death and the life to come. Christians instructed in God’s
word can never treat death lightly, for they know that death is
a bitter curse and the last enemy of man (Gen 2:17; 1 Cor
15:26). Many non-Christians fear death, but Christians ought to
have a far greater sense of how horrible it really is—thus we
rightly believe that to preserve life in the face of death is a
marvelous thing. At the same time, Christians have a true hope
and consolation when death threatens, for Christ has conquered
it. Therefore, Christians never need to view death, terrible as
it is, as the last word. Instead, the gospel enables us to
confess that in an ultimate sense to die is gain, for it means
entering the presence of Christ (Phil 1:21; 2 Cor 5:8). Hence,
the Christian’s proper desire to snatch life from the grip of
death ought never mean that we view the preservation of earthly
life as the greatest good, to be pursued at any cost. Though
such theological truths are crucial for making sound bioethics
decisions, more is needed. In addition to an accurate knowledge
of relevant moral and theological principles, Christians need a
way to put such principles into proper practice. For this they
require wisdom. Wisdom is an important theme in many places in
Scripture, especially in Proverbs. Proverbs presents wisdom as
an understanding of how the world works, how people respond to
different things, and what consequences follow from which
actions. Wisdom perceives the order that underlies the physical
and especially the moral worlds that we inhabit. It recognizes
that a word or deed that is helpful in one circumstance can be
damaging in another. In what ways, then, is the cultivation of
wisdom important for bioethics? Wisdom requires us to think hard
about the consequences of our bioethics decisions. In the midst
of strong emotions that often accompany medical crises and force
quick decisions, Christians ought to consider the risks involved
in procedures and the kind of life they might produce for
patient and family. Along similar lines, wisdom requires us to
ask whether we are able to bear the responsibility for the
bioethics decisions we make. As will be considered in the next
section, going one direction in a bioethics crisis sometimes
produces circumstances that are even more confusing and
heart-breaking. The wise Christian will step carefully when
there is such a danger. Another demand of wisdom is that
Christians obtain as much information as necessary and possible
for making informed bioethics decisions. Since wisdom instructs
us to consider circumstances, Christians must make a genuine
effort to learn what potential procedures involve, and this
means reading relevant literature and asking medical
professionals pointed questions. Finally, wisdom also suggests
that we think about virtue and character. Scripture is
interested not only in what we do, but also in the kind of
people we are. We know that our moral decisions can permanently
shape us, for better or worse, and this possibility cannot be
underestimated when we face momentous decisions concerning life
and death. In Vitro Fertilization
How would such general guidelines play out in specific bioethics
matters? In vitro fertilization (IVF) is perhaps a
helpful test case, for it offers the possibility of great
blessing for many dejected Christian families, yet also raises
troubling moral issues. Simply put, IVF describes a number of
related procedures in which eggs are fertilized by semen outside
of a female body—in a lab—and at some later point injected into
a woman’s uterus with the hope of implantation and successful
pregnancy. The reason why IVF is attractive to many families is
obvious: it provides hope for infertile, grieving couples to
have their own biological children. (In the space allowed here,
I consider briefly the most morally attractive circumstances for
IVF: when an infertile married couple donates their own sperm
and eggs and have the embryos injected into the wife’s body. I
will not address some of the most troubling circumstances under
which IVF is sometimes performed, such as third-party
parenthood, i.e., when eggs or sperm are donated by someone
other than the husband or wife, or surrogacy, i.e., when an
embryo is injected into a woman other than the egg-provider,
often for pay.) What moral issues does IVF raise? First,
Christians cannot overlook the moral good that IVF offers.
Bearing and raising children is part of the mandate given to
mankind at creation (Gen 1:28) and Scripture often speaks of
this as one of the great callings and blessings of human life.
At the same time, many have condemned IVF outright. The Roman
Catholic Church, for example, has taught that the procedure in
and of itself is morally objectionable. I find its arguments
unpersuasive, though there is no space here to examine them.
There is no clear moral principle that the act of IVF violates,
nor is there a principle demanding that infertile couples pursue
IVF. If this is true, it means that Christians should not
absolutely commend or condemn the procedure, nor lay a moral
ultimatum about this issue upon another person’s conscience.
However, considerations of wisdom, as outlined above, do suggest
reasons why Christians who are considering this procedure should
exercise great moral caution. One thing wisdom requires is
that we think about the consequences of our choices. In IVF
there is inevitably a time gap between the point of
fertilization in the lab and the injection of the embryo into
the woman. Ordinarily the embryos are frozen to preserve them
for considerable lengths of time (due to the high costs of the
procedure, couples usually have a number of embryos created all
at once, in order to provide for multiple attempts at
pregnancy). Christian couples, presumably, would insist on the
injection of all their embryos, due to their pro-life conviction
that all human life, even at its earliest stages, ought to be
cherished. However, despite good intentions, no couple can be
certain the wife will be able to receive all the embryos, no
matter how short the gap between fertilization and injection.
Serious illness or even death may make injection impossible.
What then is to be done with the embryos? One option is
destroying them, but there are grave moral objections to such an
act. Another option is keeping them permanently frozen; this,
however, seems a strikingly improper way to treat an
image-bearer of God. The remaining option is to implant them in
another woman, but this itself raises all sorts of troubling
moral questions. Is surrogate motherhood ever morally
acceptable? Do women actually have an obligation to “rescue”
frozen, unwanted embryos that otherwise face certain
destruction? The consequence of IVF may be the joy of parenthood
for many couples, but in other cases the consequence may be the
production of embryos that sit in a freezer with no morally
viable future. Wisdom, therefore, would suggest great caution in
embracing a procedure that might create such a tragic situation.
What are other considerations of wisdom that couples pondering
IVF ought to reflect upon? Certainly they ought to consider the
virtue of contentment. Desiring children is in itself
commendable, but every couple ought to beware lest this healthy
desire become a matter of greed or selfishness. Another thing to
consider is financial stewardship, for IVF remains a very
expensive procedure. How far can couples responsibly expend
their limited resources in the potentially unsuccessful quest to
have a child, particularly when such resources can be put to
many other God-glorifying purposes? Finally, infertile couples
ought to consider how their childless state may serve for the
good of society or the church. Certain occupations—e.g., going
on the mission field in a dangerous location—may be much more
suitable for those without the responsibility of raising and
protecting children. Couples might turn their disappointing
situation into other people’s good. Conclusion
Bioethics matters such as IVF are often harrowing.
Considerations such as those offered in the previous paragraphs
are, I believe, worth pondering, but they surely do not provide
a definitive moral verdict in every case. Nevertheless,
Christians who begin with a sound theology and work through
issues with godly wisdom need not despair when faced with such
decisions. In the end, we remember that God, who is all-wise,
protects and cares for his children even in their times of
weakness and indecision. Ó2006
Westminster Seminary California All rights reserved
|
|

S. M. Baugh
R. Scott Clark
Iain M. Duguid
Bryan D. Estelle
W. Robert Godfrey
Michael S. Horton
Dennis E. Johnson
Hywel R. Jones
Peter R. Jones
Joel E. Kim
Julius J. Kim
George C. Scipione
Robert B. Strimple
David M. VanDrunen
|
