Medical Ethics: Conclusion and Bibliography

IV. Conclusion

This is the topsey-turvey world that we live in. Scripture has been rejected, life has been devalued and as a result things like abortion, infanticide and euthanasia are prevalent today. In the past people would laugh at you if you told them these things would be legal under civilized governments.
As early as 1970 people realized how upside down the modern world would become. For example the editors of the journal, California Medicine, noted the “curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra or extrauterine until death.” Unfortunately, “scientific fact” is no longer based on Scripture or observation. “Scientific fact” is constantly changing to accommodate more wickedness. For example abortionists say life only starts at birth. But in order to make infanticide legal they say it only starts at 6 months to a year of this pre-life stage after birth.
Something must be done. Biblical Christians need to get involved and bring the medical community back to a biblical base. These issues are not only for doctors and highly educated people. They can be understood by anyone and we all have a responsibility to end the monstrosities of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia.

Bibliography

David, John Jefferson. Evangelical Ethics. 2nd Edition. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1993.

Davies, Eryl. Human Cloning Right or Wrong?. Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2003.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

Ling, John R. The Edge of Life. Surrey: Day One Publications, 2002.

Wilson, Douglas. Fire on the Mountain: The Ten Commandments. Moscow Idaho: Community Evangelical Fellowship.

www.abortionno.org.

www.blowthetrumpet.org/AbortionProcedures.html.

www.pregnantpause.org

www.whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com

www.wholeperson-coulseling.org/id/trichotomy.html.

The Implications of a Biblical View of Man on Medical Ethics VII

Cloning

Finally, we arrive at sci-fi reality. Cloning is the stuff found only in movies! If only that were true. What was once a wild dream has become a reality. There is no denying it: Cloning is happening. It is at early stages in its development now, but it will develop further. As the world becomes less and less concerned with moral and ethical questions it is time we started asking them. Is cloning biblically acceptable?

The overall main goal behind cloning is the prolonging of life and the search for eternal life on earth. Life has become purely scientific. Life beyond the grave is not at all considered. Once a person gets old everything can be replaced with new, young, cloned body. There is even talk about memories being transferred from the old body to the new one.

A distinction needs to be made between two types of cloning. First there is Reproductive Cloning. This is what is found in movies. It is an attempt to create an exact replica of whatever is being cloned, ranging from mice to pigs to humans. Second is Therapeutic Cloning. This attempts to create new tissue from stem cells outside of the womb to treat degenerative or genetic diseases like Parkinson’s Alzheimers and Muscular Dystrophy.

Reproductive cloning has run into some problems. Exact replicas cannot really be made. For example, research on pigs showed that the young produced by cloning differ significantly in appearance and behaviour “just as much (and sometimes more than) those produced by normal reproduction.” Also many clones are “stillborn and some survive only with severe defects.” The fact is that our understanding of DNA and genetics just isn’t good enough for completely successful cloning.

Therapeutic Cloning has its own sets of problems as well. In order to create new stem cells, human embryos are made. However, those embryos mostly don’t grow large enough. At least a 64 cell embryo is needed to harvest the stem cells. Some only grow to 6 cells. The process used to do this very interesting, but it raises more questions. Stage 1: 400 female egg cells are obtained from up to 40 donors. Stage 2: Cells are taken from the person who is going to be cloned. Stage 3: The cell nucleus, which contains the DNA, is removed from each egg by a tiny needle. Stage 4: The DNA-free eggs are placed in contact with the cells of the person being cloned. An electric charge is then used to fuse together both sets of cells. Usually some eggs divide to form embryos. Stage 5: Several eggs are implanted in up to 50 surrogate mothers, from which 9 or 10 pregnancies can result. This process is called human cloning and asexual reproduction because no male sperm is needed or used. It’s almost as if the conception stage is skipped and the embryonic stage is the starting point. The pregnancies always end due to miscarriage, abortion and extensive defects which are often found. However, Clonaid, the leading cloning company, claims that between 26 December 2002 and 4 February 2003, as man as 5 human babies have been successfully cloned. The first was Eve. A 31 year old American lady is said to have given birth to her on 26 December 2002. The mothers of the others are said to include a Dutch lesbian and a Saudi Arabian Muslim. Most scientists don’t believe this. “Once again,” they say, “[Clonaid] has failed to substantiate them with any evidence.”

These are the physical problems so far with cloning, but the moral problems are far greater. Let’s look first at reproductive cloning on animals. Biblically there is nothing wrong with cloning animals. In fact it could be used to take dominion. If the strongest, healthiest animals can be cloned and bred then we will have better quality meat, etc. There is nothing morally wrong with this. Long term implications need to be looked at though. For example how will these genetically different clones affect the ecosystems in which they live? Will they spread disease? Will they destroy other creatures? These are important questions.

An argument against this would be one that I have already used. It would go against God’s order. However, here is where what man is made up of comes into play. Man has a soul. When I used this argument to show the sinfulness of AID that was speaking about humans and relationships. Animals do not have a soul and God has given them to us for our use (Genesis 1-3). Therefore cloning them as part of dominion over them is not against God’s order, it is part of it.

One thing I would like to bring out of this is on the issue of life. God is the creator and sustainer of life. It is amazing that just by copying DNA and genes life can be produced. There is no use arguing that clones aren’t real because they move, have senses, etc. Real life is produced, not just a biological, dead mass of tissue. However, to make things more complicated, dead, stillborn animals are often the result of cloning. So how is life transferred? How does it start? When an animal is cloned does God step in and breath into the clone the breath of life? If it is humans who are somehow able to create life that is truly frightening and should be avoided. But that cannot be the case since only God can give life.

Remember that humans have a body and soul. What do animals have? If we say only a physical body we are wrong. There is something more to them. Look at their different behaviours. Take dogs for example. Every different dog, even within the same species, has a different ‘personality.’ Each dog has different tastes that it likes, etc. Even Solomon recognized that there is more to animals than just a physical body (Ecclesiastes 3:21). We call it instinct. There is a deep connection between instinct and animal life. If an animal has no instincts we say it is dead. Just like human bodies cannot live without a soul, so animals cannot live without whatever it is we call ‘instinct.’ I would suggest that that instinct is the very life that God has breathed into them

This brings us to the problems of reproductive cloning on humans. Can it actually be done? Can a soul, mind and conscience be created by copying human DNA? Most people say ‘no’ and I tend to agree. Most people also said cloning was never possible and that life could not be given to a clone. If an animals instinct/life can be given to its clone then why not a soul to a human? If the soul cannot be transferred or made in the clone then will instinct be made? Is it possible to have an animal living in a human body? These are scary thoughts. Like I said I don’t personally think it is possible since God is the only one with power to do such things like create a soul. However, I also thought animals couldn’t be cloned with life in the clone. Thus far I have been right. No human clones have created. I believe the difference between man and animals will again be recognized with the development of cloning. Even such a dodgy advancement like cloning will be used by God for his purposes.

Whether human cloning can be done or not is irrelevant to whether or not it is wrong. I believe it is wrong. The motivation for it is eternal life outside of the truth of Christ and it is once again man trying to play God. Life is in God’s hands not ours. Once again there are many things we can do. The question is should we do them? Human cloning is beyond taking dominion. It is trying to take life into our own hands and, for those outside of Christ, trying to avoid the penalty of sin.

The problems with therapeutic cloning (which is basically only done on humans) are similar to those of abortion, AID and infanticide. The question is, are the embryos really alive? No sperm is used. Only one person is needed to produce a pregnancy. Things that suggest the true life of the embryo are its growth and the actual pregnancy that results. However, since no sperm is used and no evidence for any born baby, using this technique, has been given, does it have true life or just some sort of biological life? Can it have biological life without spiritual life? I tend to think no, but trees have biological life and no spiritual life. Trees are, however, very different! They only have ‘physical bodies.’ If there is no true life then there really isn’t anything wrong with this cloning. If there is life then this process is mass-murdering thousands unborn human babies. Scientist, Paul Daniels also warns that, “The embryo is the baby in incipient stage. It has life. Any manipulation of the embryo amounts to playing with life.” Humans experimenting on other humans is frowned upon today and viewed as extremely unethical, but it is happening all the time and really the world has no basis for any ethics. Life doesn’t begin until after birth anyway, they say.

The main principles involved are (1) man is in God’s image, (2) life starts at conception and (3) God instituted the marriage relationship where children are to be born. If the cloned embryos are truly alive they are being slaughtered by the thousands and the image of God is being obliterated in order to harvest stem cells. It is very reminiscent of the movie “The Matrix” where machines are using humans as batteries to harvest energy. This severely devalues human life and is in fact the result of the dehumanizing of man.

Life begins at conception. This process skips conception since it does not involve male sperm. But is conception the only place life starts? Is it the only way life starts? Questions like these are terrifying and I don’t believe we have the knowledge to answer them. Cloning is possible, but by the scientists’ own admissions they don’t know how it happens or why.

This cloning process is also used like Artificial Fertilization to give lesbians or single women children without the act of fornication and so on. Peter Saunders sums up the biblical principle well with regard to this matter: “God ordained that his image in human beings ( Genesis 1:27) was to be passed on in the context of a loving committed marriage relationship, through sexual union (Genesis 2:24) and that children should be reared, protected, disciplined and educated within the context of a stable family relationship. We disregard his wisdom at our peril.”

The Implications of a Biblical View of Man on Medical Ethics VI

Reproductive Technologies

We have now seen the three largest issues in the medical world today. The technologies in reproduction and cloning, however, are the scariest of all. If determining what is right and what is wrong is difficult in regard to the “lethal trio” then some of these next situations are near impossible. Again, medical technology has outstripped our understanding of the ethics involved.

Artificial insemination, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and surrogate mothers are the big issues. In artificial insemination sexual intercourse is not needed to fertilize the female egg. The process is completely artificial. Sperm is gathered from the man, normally by means of masturbation, placed in a syringe, inserted into the vagina and squirted in the direction of the uterus as close to the time of ovulation as possible. The success rate for this operation is around 50-60%. In Vitro Fertilization is usually done when the woman’s fallopian tubes are blocked or damaged making impossible the normal passage of the egg from the ovaries to the place of fertilization. In the procedure the woman is given fertility hormones to induce “super ovulation.” Thus, several eggs can be harvested from the woman by use of a laparoscope, which is a small telescope inserted into the abdominal cavity through a small incision in the abdominal wall. Removing the eggs at the proper time is important. Too soon and the eggs may be immature and thus incapable of normal fertilization. Too late and spontaneous ovulation can occur and the eggs may be lost in the abdominal cavity. 90 minutes before fertilization is attempted a fresh semen sample is collected, again by masturbation. In order to concentrate the sperm it is washed and centrifuged in a culture medium. After the eggs have been cultured for 5-6 hours for additional maturation the fertilization is done in a petri dish. Once fertilization has occurred, embryonic cell division takes place in the laboratory culture medium which is designed to duplicate natural conditions. Dr. Gary Hodgen notes, however, that these “duplicate” conditions are no where near as good as the natural conditions in the female’s body. The embryo, or embryos, are then placed into the uterine cavity by a slender teflon catheter passed through the neck of the uterus. Right-to-Life groups often criticise IVF doctors for flushing “surplus” embryos down the drain. The Norfolk clinic researchers have reported pregnancy rates of 20% with single embryo implants, 27% with double implants and 39% with the implantation of three embryos. Surrogate mothers “rent out” their bodies to have babies for other women who cannot naturally have their own. Now that we know what each of these are it is time to look at each one in more detail.

Artificial Insemination is used by many couples, who cannot conceive naturally to have children. It has been estimated that 250,000 people in the USA have been born by artificial insemination. Sperm from the husband is taken and placed in his wife. This is called artificial insemination by husband (AIH). However, artificial insemination is also done on non-married women as well. Single women, lesbians and even married women use this operation to fall pregnant. This is called artificial insemination by donor (AID). In the case of married women, AID is done because their husbands are sterile. While AIH seems completely valid, AID raises serious questions.

Ever heard of blood banks where blood is stored for later use? Well, AID makes use of sperm banks. Men can go into these banks, go into a private room, masturbate and sell their sperm to the bank. One young graduate student at UCLA, for example, earned $50 a week by selling his sperm. Twice a week he would stop by the local sperm bank and sell two samples of his sperm. “Without sounding too conceited, I’m healthy. I’m intelligent. I have good genes, and I’d like to pass them along,” said the student. This sperm is then frozen in liquid nitrogen, placed in a vial and put on a shelf until a woman comes in and buys it for around $25-$50. One doctor reported that one donor was used in over 50 pregnancies! Professor John Jefferson Davis points out that this “raises the small but nevertheless real possibility of unwitting incestuous marriages in the future.”

That is not all sperm banks are used for, however. Some men who are about to have a vasectomy will save some of their sperm at the banks as a sort of “insurance” just in case they change their mind and do want children one day. So the sperm banks benefit men as well as women.

AID is legal in most states and in most countries around the world. After all it is the woman’s choice as to whether or not she wants to fall pregnant. The implications of AID, however, are serious. What it does is create bastard children outside of marriage without real parents. This is completely against God’s order of things. Children are a blessing from the Lord that come as a result of the parent’s love for each other inside the marriage. This is the family environment. Now women can go buy their pregnancy for $25 and have a child without the responsibilities of a family or husband. Although technically this cannot be called adultery, it certainly produces the same results. One lady said she felt betrayed and angry when she found out her “father” was a $25 vial of sperm. As Professor John Jefferson Davis again aptly points out, “AID endangers the one-flesh unity (Genesis 2:24) that God has willed for human marriage.” Indeed this is the biggest problem. We are using advances in technology to completely distort God’s order.

What then about AIH? According to Roman Catholic teaching, both AIH and AID are wrong. As far back as 1949 Pope Pius XII stated that even the use AIH within marriage is wrong. Biblically though there is no reason why it would be wrong. AIH is a use of technology for good. If in the marriage relationship the woman cannot conceive by natural means and the couple wants to raise a child, then AIH is a legitimate option. AID destroys order and relationships. AIH overcomes medical problems to help married couples in which the relationships are in place. Please note that illegitimate homosexual marriages are not true and biblical and therefore can claim no right to AIH since it would obviously be AID.

An objection to AIH is that the husband would have to commit masturbation to provide his semen. However, this is not the only way sperm can be collected. Technology is such today that there are plenty of ways other than masturbation to collect the sperm.

In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) takes Artificial Fertilization one step further and actually makes the fertilization process happen outside of the woman’s body and then puts it into the woman’s body. Again if this is done inside marriage with husband and wife and all goes well, nothing can be said to be wrong with it. The problem lies in how often it goes wrong. Look back at the percentages of success. At the highest it is 39%. How many of the remaining 61% are embryos that die at an early state or are thrown away? No one really knows. It is a scary thought though that life starts at conception and IVF causes conception that most of the time goes wrong. How many live human embryos are destroyed in this process? IVF’s problem is that technology is not advanced far enough for it to be always rightly used. One could say IVF is human experimentation.

“Childless couple-wife unable to conceive looking for white female who would volunteer to be artificially inseminated with semen of husband and then give child to couple. All responses confidential. All expenses paid. Kindly direct responses to Noel P. Keane, attorney, 1129 Parklane Towers East, Dearborn, Michigan 48126. (313) 336-9290.”

This classified add in the December 22, 1980 edition of the Boston Globe shows a startling development in the use of artificial insemination: surrogate motherhood.

Jacquelyn Burkhart, a nursing student at Portland State University, offered to rent her womb to a childless couple for $15,000 by placing an ad in the newspaper. She saw renting her womb as a good way to help pay her school expenses. “In essence, I am selling a baby,” Ms. Burkhart stated, “but I don’t feel bad about it. I’m doing someone a service…I’m just growing it for them, renting out – for a high fee – my uterus.”

Besides the obvious ethical concerns, surrogate motherhood can become a massive legal mess. If the surrogate mother decides to keep the child does she have that right? If the child is born with a deformity do the couple have a right to sue? The reason it can become so complex is because of its sinfulness. Children are not “things” that can be commercialized and sold. A woman’s reproductive system is not something that should be rented out. God’s order is again brushed aside and human life is further devalued. If the child is born with a deformity for example, “it” is seen as a faulty piece of merchandise. This is just one of the many wrongs that can arise from artificial insemination and other reproductive technologies.

The Implications of a Biblical View of Man on Medical Ethics V

Euthanasia

The third of the lethal trio is euthanasia. The word is derived from the Greek (eu + thanatos) which, literally translated, means “good death.” Today the term has been hi-jacked. Professor John Jefferson Davis, in his book Evangelical Ethics, defines euthanasia as follows: “The deliberate killing of a person suffering an illness believed to be terminal ostensibly out of ‘mercy.’” A common phrase used in regard to euthanasia is “mercy killing.”

 The modern world makes a distinction between voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. In voluntary euthanasia the patient gives his/her consent and the physician, or even a family member, puts the patient out of his/her misery. Actually there are machines out there that allow the patient to euthanise himself.

On 22 September 1996, Bob Dent, a 66 year old carpenter with prostrate cancer, became the first person to die under euthanasia law. This happened under the Terminally Ill Act of the Northern Territory of Australia. Bob Dent used a machine, developed and supplied by Dr. Philip Nitschke, that allowed him to have control over the time of his death. The machine gave him three questions and once he answered ‘yes’ to all three and hit ‘enter’, lethal drugs entered his arm and he died. Since a machine was used it could not technically be called ‘medically assisted suicide.’ All the doctor did was invent the machine, supply it, supply the drugs and instruct the patient. His express purpose was to help Mr. Dent kill himself. Thus, it might as well be called assistance. While commenting on Mr. Dent’s death, Dr. Nitschke said, “It (voluntary euthanasia) is the greatest thing you can do for a person. I felt at the end of it enhanced by the experience.”

 Dr. Jack Kevorkian is another doctor who assists people in committing suicide by the use of machines he invents. Over the years he has assisted over 120 people. He is another Saddam Hussein of the medical world. In 1999 he was given a 10 to 25 year prison sentence for the second degree murder of Thomas Youk because he delivered the lethal injection himself and didn’t use a machine. Since these events the world has become increasingly in favour of euthanasia, and especially of voluntary euthanasia. In Belgium, the Netherlands and the State of Oregon it is legal. In fact in 1991 9% of all deaths in the Netherlands were due to euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is more often frowned upon, but it will eventually be legalized under certain conditions at this rate.

 One major case that practically legalized non-voluntary euthanasia was that of Anthony Bland. 17 year old Anthony was a victim of the disaster that took place during the FA Cup semi-final soccer match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough Stadium, Sheffield on 15 April 1989. During the chaos that erupted during the first few minutes of the match, his chest was crushed, his breathing stopped and his brain was deprived of oxygen. He was taken to Airedale General Hospital where he was later diagnosed as being in permanent vegetative state (PVS). He was breathing on his own and could respond to loud noises. However, he required constant nursing care and was fed through a nasogastric tube. There was no evidence that he could hear or see. During 1992 the court Law Lords ruled that all treatment should be withheld. This included food. On 22 February 1993 the doctor switched off the pump of the nasogastric tube. Nine days later on 3 March 1993, Anthony Bland became the 96th victim of the Hillsborough disaster. The coroner recorded it as an accidental death as a direct result of injuries sustained as the patient was crushed in the crowd.

 This event caused an uproar among human rights groups and in the public at large. Since when is food treatment? What is it treating? In the end Anthony Bland was starved to death. This can only be called murder. Food is basic and is necessary for human life. It’s not that they were taking away extraordinary means of keeping him alive like a ventilator. He was breathing on his own. He was alive even in purely medical terms. But because he was a burden to the hospital and deemed to have a life not worth living, he was starved to death. Everyone is entitled to food. So much money is spent on helping starving people groups around the world, but at the same time patients in hospitals are purposefully starved to death.

 Some argue that this cannot be called murder because the technology used to keep him alive (in this case the nasogastric feeding tube and pump) didn’t always exist and naturally he would have died a long time ago. This I find to be a very weak argument. The fact is that we do have the technology today and it has been successfully used to save many lives. The preservation of life is not a wrong desire. I’m sure that the people who argue this way wouldn’t object to being placed on a ventilator for surgeries that will save their own lives.

 The huge ethical issue in regard to euthanasia is not PVS or complicated diseases however. It is about “pulling the plug” and determining when a person is really dead. Before more advanced technology came onto the scene, if a person’s heart wasn’t pumping and the body wasn’t breathing the person was declared dead. Now we can revive those functions and keep them working. The detection of brain waves is the popular way of determining whether or not a person is alive today. In 1968 the Harvard Medical School’s Ad Hoc Committee to Examine the Definition of Brain Death developed the following criteria: (1) ‘unreceptivity and unresponsivity” to “externally applied stimuli and inner need,” (2) absence of spontaneous muscular movements and spontaneous respiration; and (3) no elicitable reflexes. In 1981 the President’s commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioural Research drafted a Uniform Determination of Death Act which was adopted as the legal definition of death in several states. According to this definition death is (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem. The second part of the definition is very good. It guards against hasty pronouncements of death of those in a coma by saying the entire brain. This provides a sort of “check” against euthanasia.

 We have already seen that death occurs when the soul leaves the body. Now we know the medical definitions as well. The problem is in making the connection. Do brain waves only occur when the soul is in the body? It would seem so. Otherwise we might have a biologically alive, dead guy whose body could still see, feel, walk, etc. The problem with this comes in determining what brain waves are, how strong they should be, etc. Also, do ventilators, which keep the cardio-pulmonary system going, keep the soul in the body? An if so what if there are no brain waves? Like I said in the beginning our understanding of all of this is limited.. However, like with everything else, there are principles that can be applied.

 The main consideration is that there is life after death. There is a place of eternal joy for those in Christ and there is a place of eternal suffering for those outside of Christ. “Mercy killings” often send people to worse suffering in hell. Instead of trying to “end the suffering” of a person on this earth by killing them we need to, especially if they are outside of Christ, try as hard as we can to keep them alive. What they really need is salvation in Christ, no to be “put out of their misery” and sent to worse misery. What about a person who is known to be a Christian and is on a life-support machine? If he is not breathing on his own and has no signs of life then, I believe that his soul has left his body already and the machine can be unplugged. Really the same can be said with the non-Christian because it is already too late. However, like most things in medical technology, there are complex situations. Some people who have been on a life-support machine for years, all of a sudden get up and are perfectly fine. Generally though, if a person is not a believer and extraordinary means are being used to treat him (help him breath, etc), then surely that should not be discontinued in a hurry. Still though it is a hard to make rules like this due to the unpredictable nature of these events. The difficulty as we have seen is determining whether or not he is really dead. It’s not something we should have to determine, but technology is such that we must.

 One thing that can, however, be stated for certain is that live patients, especially the elderly, are being euthanised (voluntarily and non-voluntarily) and this is murder. Again the Netherlands is a perfect example. Elderly people in that country are afraid to go to the hospital because at any time they could be taken out. Surely we do not want to live in a world of fear like this where the people who are supposed to help us, kill us.

 In closing on the lethal trio, I would like to show again the upside down world we live in by including a point made by Douglas Wilson in his sermon on the sixth commandment., He points out that our world is so backward that in the hospitals one floor is aborting and destroying babies and in the floor right above it, the same people are rushing to save premature babies. We need to get involved in any way possible to stop these outrageous travesties.

The Implications of a Biblical View of Man on Medical Ethics IV

Infanticide

 

 

Infanticide, as the name implies, is the murder of infants and is basically a form of euthanasia. As of yet it is not legal worldwide, but the same arguments used to legalize abortion can and are being used. If the born baby is deformed, has a defect or is unwanted why not just get rid of it? Again it will not have a good quality life so put it out of its misery. Some have even gone so far as to say that infants cannot be truly called alive until certain developments have occurred and tests have been performed. The two Nobel prize winners for discovering the structure of DNA support this view. James Watson, one of the prize winners, said, “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system.” The “choice” he is talking about is whether or not to keep the child. His partner, Francis Crick, similarly said, “…no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests, it forfeits the right to live.” In yet another attempt to justify infanticide, Johnathan Glover, a prominent voice in bioethics, says in his book Causing Death and Saving Lives, “…new born babies have no conception of death and so cannot have any preference for life or death.” Some, like Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse, two advocates of infanticide, have said that treatment, including food and normal care, of a child can be legally withheld for up to 28 days after birth since it is not yet alive.

But how often does infanticide really happen? Unfortunately quite a lot. Take for example the one-child policy in China. Abortions are done all the time to keep in step with this policy and if an “extra” baby manages to slip through then infanticide is the solution. In August 2000 Western media reported Chinese officials in Hubei province drowning a healthy baby in front of the “offending” parents. In India there have been surveys done which show that out of hundreds of families more than half have admitted to killing a child. Some have called this infanticide a “convenient management option” whether it be for population control, defects, etc. An interesting statistic about these two countries is their male:female ratios. On average a country’s male:female population ratio is 100:105. In India it is 100:93 and in China 100:88. This is evidence of sex-selective abortions and infanticide directed against little girls. What about all the non-reported cases around the world and those who won’t admit to committing the act? It happens far more often than we realise, and our culture has shown an ever increasing desire to legalize the practice as in China and perhaps several other countries. If abortion is legal then infanticide should logically follow.

As we have seen, abortion is murder. Based on the same reasoning infanticide is also murder. If it came in degrees of badness, infanticide would be even more heartless. Even based on what abortionists say about the beginning of life condemns infanticide as murder. However, the world is corrupted by sin and it sees no reason why infanticide should not be legalized following abortion. It is the exact same concept, it just deals with postnatal rather than prenatal children.

If infanticide becomes legalized world-wide the implications are huge. Why not then kill anyone who is a liability, or has a disease, or laughs too much and annoys you? After all that is what the reasons for infanticide boil down to: utter nonsensical excuses. There is so much effort being put forth to stop murderers in the world, but at the same time it’s being legalized with regard to abortion, etc. The world has no basis for any laws though since it has rejected the Gospel. Things like infanticide are proof of that.

We will now look at the reasons given to justify infanticide one by one. First, life does not really begin until a certain amount of time has passed after birth. This can range from 3 days to 1 year. The qualification for this life is rather arbitrary, but includes things like learning and communication. Interestingly enough Susan M. Ludington, former Assistant Professor of Nursing at UCLA, said, “We know now that from about 17-24 weeks, gestational age, all the systems are operational. The baby does respond, and early learning can occur.” This smashes abortion’s theory on life as well as infanticide’s. Even the abortionists would agree that response and learning are signs of life. In reality though infanticide’s “theory” about when life begins in absolutely ridiculous. It is incomprehensible to think how someone could actually, truly believe that that cute little, newborn baby is actually not alive yet. Funny though how they can tell if it’s dead.

Even when it is accepted that the child is in fact alive remember Johnathan Glover’s remark. Since newborn babies have no conception of life and death they cannot prefer life to death. I fail to see how this justifies killing them. It is just another excuse to take advantage of the weak, and in the cruelest possible way. I wonder if while Mr. Glover made this remark he had a true conception of what death really is. Perhaps we should have sent him on his way to find out according to his reasoning. After all it would be “merciful.” This again goes to show the stupidity of modern arguments that try to justify sin.

One of the most famous cases of infanticide was in April 1982 involving the “Infant Doe.” Infant Doe was born in Bloomington, Indiana with Down’s Syndrome and a deformed esophagus which prevented normal food intake. The parents were bent on killing this child. They refused to give their consent to corrective surgery and ordered the doctors to withhold all nourishment. Ten different couples expressed interest in adopting Infant Doe, but the parents refused to give up custody. An emergency hearing was held and the justices of the Indiana Supreme Court voted 3-1 in favour of supporting the parent’s wishes. In effect this is a legalization of infanticide. Infant Doe died on April 15th having only lived one day. This could have been prevented and the child could still be alive today. Mike Lorentay, one of the people who offered to adopt Infant Doe and teaches the printing trade to the retarded in Edmonton, Canada, said, ” I believe that every person, no matter who or what their ages, has a right to live. I’m not well off, but I’d pay for it (the correctional operation) and bring the baby back to Canada.” The attorney who represented the parents at the hearing coined the phrase “treatment to do nothing.” In response to this Columnist George Will, father of a happy Down’s Syndrome boy, remarked, “It is an old story; language must be mutilated when a perfumed rationalization of an act is incompatible with a straightforward description of the act…the broader message of the case is that being an unwanted baby is a capital offense.”

This was not a single isolated incident. Several cases happened early and turned out the same way. The parents refused permission to give care and the children died. Today Holland is a perfect example where over 15 cases of infanticide are reported every year.

The dominoes are falling and euthanasia is next in line. There is no way infanticide is justifiable under any circumstances. Sometimes parents cannot afford the expensive care needed for their very deformed, sick, retarded children, but that gives us no right to step in and kill the child. Once the best care that can be given is done then the child will die naturally without our deliberately killing it. Murder is against God’s law (Exodus 20:13). Population control or putting a child out of its misery are poor excuses.

Genesis 1:28 “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’”

The Implications of a Biblical View of Man on Medical Ethics III

III. Medical Issues

Abortion

 

Dr. John R. Ling, former lecturer in biochemistry and bioethical issues at the University of Wales, Berystwyth, likens the first three issues, Abortion, Infanticide and Euthanasia, to three upended dominoes. When the first is legalized, as abortion has been, it will inevitably topple over the next one which in turn will topple over the next one.

Abortion is a procedure where unborn babies are destroyed. There are several methods by which this procedure can be accomplished: vacuum curettage, dilation and curettage (D&C), dilation and evacuation (D&E), hysterotomy, prostaglandins and hypertonic saline.

Vacuum curettage is a common technique used in first-trimester abortions. In this method the cervix is dilated and a suction (vacuum) device is placed in the uterus. It rips the unborn child to pieces. The doctor then uses a magnifying glass or microscope to make sure everything has been removed.

In D&C the unborn child is cut to pieces with a sharp curette and scraped out of the uterus. This procedure is usually more painful than the vacuum technique as it requires larger dilation of the cervix and causes a larger loss of blood.

D&E combines elements of vacuum curettage and D&C. This technique is used for abortions during the thirteenth to twentieth week of gestation. The unborn baby’s skull and skeleton are further developed at this stage. Thus the physician uses special instruments to crush the bones before the child is suctioned out.

A hysterotomy is a mini C-section. A small incision is made in the abdominal wall and the child is removed. If it is still alive it is left to die. “The overall morbidity and morality of this procedure,” notes Dr. Robert Hatcher of the Emory University School of Medicine, “have severely limited its use.”

Prostaglandins are chemicals which are infused into the amniotic sac to induce premature labour. This also kills the child, although on rare occasions the baby comes out alive. To its disadvantage this procedure can cause gastrointestinal disturbances and “complementary” cervical lacerations.

Hypertonic saline is a salt solution that poisons the unborn child. It is infused into the amniotic sac and the child inhales it. This burns off the child’s outer skin layer and can cause brain hemorrhages. One day later the mother will deliver the dead, shriveled baby. Those who have observed this procedure liken it to the effect of napalm on war victims.

According to the latest statistics, approximately 42 million abortions happen per year. That is 115,000 a day and one every 22 seconds. 83% of these abortions happen in developing countries where the medical knowledge and equipment often isn’t the best. This results in the harm of the mother as well.

In the US 52% of women having abortions are younger than 25. Of that 52% of women teenagers account for 20%, girls under the age of 12, 1.2% and women aged 20-24, 32%.

52% of all abortions occur before the 9^th week of pregnancy, 25% between the 9^th and 10^th weeks, 12% between the 11^th and 12^th weeks, 6% between the 13^th and 15^th weeks, 4% between the 16^th and 20^th weeks and the remaining 1% (16,450 per year) after the 20^th week of pregnancy.

A lot of people think women have abortions mainly because they are raped or because they would be harmed during child birth. Well, it’s time to dispel that myth. 1% of women have abortions because of rape or incest. 6% of women have abortions due to potential health problems. The remaining 93% of women who have abortions have them because they do not want the child, the child is the “wrong” sex, the child is inconvenient or the child will have a low quality of life due to disease, etc.

The justification for all this is that unborn children are not alive. Life only starts after birth when the child can breath, eat, etc. on its own. But even then, if the child is defective it might still not be considered alive. Look at this striking comment by Peter Singer, former Professor of Philosophy at Monash University, Victoria, Australia: “If we compare a severely defective human infant with a non-human animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the non-human to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant…Humans who bestow superior value on the lives of all human beings, solely because they are members of our own species, are judging on lines strikingly similar to those used by white racists who bestow superior value on the lives of other whites, merely because they are members of their own race.”

This points out one of the major problems in modern society: human life has been severely devalued. This problem is fed by a rejection of God’s Word, especially the image of God in us, and things like the evolutionary world-view which says we are animals just like every other creature on the planet.

As a result of this low view of human life man has tried to control life. Especially in the area of medicine man thinks he can decide who should live and who should not. This is wickedness. God is the only one who has the right to five life and take it away (Deut. 32:39). Man needs to stop playing God and act as he should. We are stewards of God’s gift of life, but life is not ours to give or take whenever we feel like it. God has given us specific commands and principles with regard to the taking of human life and abortion is clearly murder.

There are four major positions held with regard to abortion. First, all abortion is justified. After all life doesn’t begin until birth. Add to this the argument that the unborn “thing” is part of the mother’s body and you come up with this view. The mother has the right to do with her body as she wishes. Second, abortion is only justified if the child will have a low quality of life due to defects. Third, abortion is only justified when the life of the mother is put in danger. Finally, the view that abortion is never justified. Let’s look at each view individually.

The view that all abortion is justified is quite clearly wrong. We have already seen that biblically life starts at conception and even that little child is in the image of God. Therefore, abortion equates to murder which is expressly condemned in Scripture with four simple words:

Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder.”

So to say all abortion is justified is completely unfounded. Again as we have already seen Scripture treats a woman and the child in her belly as two distinct human beings.

Abortion is certainly not justified in every case, but what about if the child will be defective or handicapped? Dr. John R. Ling points out the fact that it is politically incorrect to refer to someone as handicapped, but their handicap is a warrant to kill them. Interestingly enough though handicapped people who are alive are treated specially which is how it should be in the first place. After all we have reserved handicapped parking, paralympics, etc. This is how mixed up our culture has become. There is no denying we have the technology to quite accurately determine if a child will be born with a defect, but so what? Does that mean we have a right to rip the child apart and pull it out of the mother? And who are we to determine who should live based on what we think a quality life should be? Unfortunately though true life is what the doctors say true life is in these situations.

Exodus 4:11 says these disabilities and defects are from God. They do not give us the right to crush the child. The quality of life is not a subjective thing where we can decide whether or not it is worth it. An interesting connection here is 2 Corinthians 12:9. God’s power is made perfect in our weakness. This includes physical disabilities.

As the final blow to this view point here is a letter written by three handicapped persons who were allowed to live:

Trowbridge

Kent

December 8, 1962

Sirs:

We were disabled from causes other than Thalidomide, the first of us having two useless arms and hands; the second, two useless legs; and the third, the use of neither arms nor legs.

We were fortunate…in having been allowed to live and we want to say with strong conviction how thankful we are that none took it upon themselves to destroy us as helpless cripples.

Here at the Delarue school of spastics, one of the schools of the National Spastic Society, we have found worthwhile and happy lives and we face our future with confidence. Despite our disability, life still has much to offer and we are more than anxious, if only metaphorically, to reach out toward the future.

This, we hope, will give comfort and hope to the parents of the Thalidomide babies, and at the same time condemn those who would contemplate the destruction of even a limbless baby.

Yours faithfully,

Elane Duckett

Glynn Verdon

Caryl Hodges

So much for a “life devoid of quality and meaning.”

There are many Christians who believe that abortion is only justified if the mother will be harmed or die during gestation or birth of the child. This may seem right on the surface, but I tend to be very sceptical about it. For one thing there is absolutely no Scripture to back this up and in these situations human life is (if I can put it this way) being toyed with. Who determines which one, mother or child, has the greatest chance of survival? How much, or rather how little, harm needs to be done to the mother to justify killing the baby? I don’t believe it us up to us to decide who gets to live and who doesn’t. Just because we have the technology to do so doesn’t mean we should. The fact that we have the technology just makes it all the harder. Complex situations can arise. A 13 year old girl can be raped, fall pregnant and due to her small, fragile body be put in a life threatening situation due to the baby. What should be done? Should the baby be delivered and the young girl die or should we step in and save the girl by aborting the baby? On the basis of the view-point I have been presenting I would have to say no we should not step in. It is not up to us. Even though I say this, it would be very hard for me to judge someone in that situation because it is an extremely difficult situation for all involved..

Finally all abortion is wrong. It is all murder. This is the view I believe to be most biblical even though there are seemingly impossible situations. The rules however are clear whether or not they are difficult to apply. Life starts at conception. Unborn children are in the image and likeness of God. Life is in God’s hands not ours. Therefore, abortion is murder and in today’s world it is murder in the highest degree. It is legal and done very willingly.

Abortion is a monstrosity that has been used to take hundreds of millions of lives. The only difference between Saddam Hussein and abortionists (those who support it legalize it and actually do it) is that the abortionists have a higher kill count.

In 1977 Dr. William B. Wadill experienced the ultimate “embarrassment” for an abortionist: a live birth. He performed a salt-poisoning abortion on an 18 year old girl in Orange County, California. The baby survived the poisoning and was born alive. Dr. Wadill order the staff to do nothing and left the baby to die. In his court case, where he was charged with murder, a pediatrician testified that he saw Dr. Waddill choke the 2.5 pound baby girl. “I saw him put his hand on this baby’s neck and push down,” testified Dr. Ronald Cornelson. Dr. Cornelson also claimed that Dr. Waddill suggested injecting the baby with potassium chloride or drowning her. In two separate murder trials Dr. Waddill denied Dr. Cornelson’s testimony and the jury deadlocked on both occasions. Whether Dr. Waddill is guilty or not, the child died. In either case this is infanticide and it springs from abortion.

The Implications of a Biblical View of Man on Medical Ethics II

II. The Biblical View of Man

Now then, what is man? Man, like every animal on the planet, is a creature. Man is the result of God’s ingenious, wonderful work of creation.

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Genesis 1:26-27 “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

But as we see in those passages that is not the end of it. Unlike all of the other creatures we are in God’s image. This means human life has tremendous value, a concept lost in today’s world.

                                              Monotomy

The next important question is what is man made up of? There are three major views concerning this matter. First of all, the view that man has only a physical body. Not surprisingly this is the view is held by the world at large today. We can easily dismiss this view as wrong and unfounded by looking at several passages of Scripture. Genesis 1:27 shows, from the beginning, that there is more than a physical body to man. Man has the image of god in him.

Acts 17:29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone– an image made by man’s design and skill.” (Emphasis mine).

1 Corinthians 11:7 “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” (Emphasis mine)

This image of God in us includes our souls, minds and consciences.

Matthew 22:37 “Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’”

Philippians 4:7 “And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”

Titus 1:15 “To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.”

Our souls are the spiritual part of us. No one can truly deny the fact that we are more than just physical beings without shunning Scripture and human experience also. Our minds are tools that God has given us. With them we can imaging, contemplate, etc. They are not just our brains. Animals have brains, but no minds. Their brains control their bodily functions, but they have no mind to comprehend or contemplate those functions. The very fact that we can contemplate our own existence is evidence of our minds and spirituality. Our consciences are what God has given all of us from conception to differentiate between right and wrong and to have a realization that God exists. Ever felt really bad after doing something you shouldn’t have done? That’s your conscience. We are not born with “Tabula Rasa” or a blank slate.

                                                Trichotomy

 

This brings us to the second view called Trichotomy. 1 Thessalonians 5:23 says, “May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”(Emphasis mine). This is the primary passage used to support this view which says man is made up of three parts: body, soul and spirit. Trichotomists make several important distinctions and statements. The physical body is made up of the senses, the skin, the bones, etc. The soul includes man’s mind, will and emotions. The spirit is for relationship and fellowship with God. 

Another thing pointed out is that the conscience lies between the spirit and soul and the cognizance. That is, awareness and perception lies between the soul and body. Thus man becomes five parts. Now a further distinction is made between the three basic parts. The spirit is said to be perfect. The soul is somewhat corrupt and the physical body is even more corrupt.

 Lastly the spirit is said to be the difference between man and animals. Animals have a soul, but not a spirit. This becomes very important when discussing cloning. Another couple passages used to support this view are John 4:24 which says we are to worship in spirit and Genesis 1:26-27 which shows that we are in God’s image. God is Triune and therefore it makes sense that we have three parts.This view can also readily be dismissed although it is not as easy. Let’s start first with the foundational passage. 1 Thessalonians 5:23. To use Wayne Grudem’s argument the phrase “spirit and soul and body” is inconclusive. Paul could just be piling on synonyms for emphasis as is sometimes done elsewhere in Scripture. Matthew 22:37 says “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This does not mean that the heart, mind and soul are completely separate parts to man. If that were the case man would be made up of something like five or six parts because Mark 12:30 adds strength to the equation. Clearly that would not be right. Adding all of these as separate parts is to make false distinctions. For example, strength is part of the physical body and the heart and conscience are parts of the soul. Also Paul is not saying that soul and spirit are separate or different, but simply that those are two terms to describe our immaterial part. In fact there are several places in Scripture where spirit and soul are used interchangeably.

John 12:27 “Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour?’ No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.”

John 13:21 “After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me.”

Luke 1:46-47 “And Mary said: ‘My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,’” [a form of Hebrew parallelism].

This fact also explains John 4:24. The fact that we are in God’s image does not mean that we must also have three parts. We are less than God, but the fact that we still have more than one part to us is a testament to God’s image in us.                                               

Another huge problem is that in this view there is a perfect part to us. Even after sin the spirit is still perfect it is just repressed. Biblically this is clearly false. We are sinful and totally corrupt. There is nothing good in and of ourselves.

Romans 3:10-18 “As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know. There is no fear of God before their eyes

Romans 7:18 “I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.“

                                                   Dichotomy

So then what does Scripture teach? It is the third view, Dichotomy. Dichotomy says that there are two parts to man: the physical body and the immaterial soul (or if you prefer: spirit). Again the body is made up of the senses, organs, etc. The soul includes the mind, conscience, etc. Both parts are corrupted by sin. Our imaginations are full of wicked thoughts and with our bodies we commit all kinds of sin.

With regard to life and death our bodies can be alive while spiritually we are dead.

Ephesians 2:1 “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,”

Colossians 2:13 “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,“Similarly our bodies die due to the curse of sin, but our spirit (soul) can still be alive if we are in Christ.

 

Romans 8:10 “But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.“ 

If the soul is not alive in Christ it suffers eternally in hell in what is often called the second, eternal death.

Matthew 10:28 “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

All of these Scriptures plus many more provide adequate support for this view.

                                          Life and Death

Now that we know the parts of man we can ask the question of the century: when does life begin? It is at conception, after birth, at 8 weeks, or at the start of the second trimester? If it is at, say the start of the second trimester, when exactly is that? Can we nail it down to the very second? All of these questions are serious especially when dealing with abortion. I believe life begins at conception. The moment the male sperm cell hits the female egg cell life begins. It may be a mystery to us how God creates the child’s soul or how sin is passed on during this process, but nevertheless life has begun.

Before we look at what the Bible has to say we must realise that the Bible isn’t a medical textbook and does not give specific answers in this area. However, there are still principles that can be applied.

Psalm 139:13-16 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Luke 1:44 “As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.”

Job 31:15 “Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?”

All these passages speak of the child in the womb as a live human being made by God.

Exodus 21:22-25 sees the child as having life that is the same life that “grown-ups” have:

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.“ 

Of course people object and say the child is not really alive yet because God is only starting the forming process and at birth he is finished. This is foolish for a few reasons. First this objection is made to justify abortion (murder of unborn children). However, even if their objection were true, aborting this “thing” in the womb would be just as bad as murder because we are still destroying God’s handiwork which in this case is his image which he is working into us. Secondly, the objection implies that there are stages in between life and death. This is utter nonsense. A person no matter how old, prenatal or postnatal, is either alive or dead. There is no intermediate state where God is trying desperately to finish his project before 9 months is up. Lastly, look again at Luke 1:44. In the womb the child leapt for joy! It sounds to me like the child already has life!

While these passages do not explicitly say life begins at conception they do show that the child in the womb is alive and in the image of God. Conception is the only logical answer however. What authority do we have to say that life only begins at birth anyway?

Now then, when is a person dead? Please note that I am on speaking in terms of the physical body, but at the same time recognizing that the body cannot live without the soul. After all death is when the soul leaves the body. The body and soul are intricately connected. When the body stops functioning due to damage, the soul will leave. Yet the body cannot function on its own. The difficulty today is determining when a person is really dead. Ventilators can artificially keep the body running, but is the soul still there? You see there is a difference between true life which includes the spiritual and pure biological life which is just the body breathing, the heart beating, etc. Now that we have the definition of what death is, however, we can answer some of the questions later on.

Let us recap. Man is in the image of God. This separates us from animals. Man is sinful and deserves death. This death is the curse of sin. Man, however, is redeemable by God. Though our bodies will die, our souls will live on if Christ has redeemed them. Body and soul are the two parts to man. The body is physical and the soul is immaterial. Lastly, I will add that the purpose of man is to glorify God. Hopefully this paper will help show how to better do so in the area of medicine.

There are five major issues I will be dealing with: Abortion, Infanticide, Euthanasia, Artificial Fertilization and Cloning. It is important to note that in a lot of cases black and white rules cannot be set down. As we will see certain situations can become very complex. We need to take one situation at a time.

 

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), pp.472-486.

The Implications of a Biblical View of Man on Medical Ethics I

I. Introduction

“Developments in modern technology have been far outstripping our ability to understand adequately their long-range ethical ramifications.” Unfortunately this statement is no joke. Dr. Robert Foote of Cornell put it this way: “In some of this research I am reminded of a story where the pilot came on and said, ‘This is your captain speaking. We are flying at an altitude of 35,000 feet and the speed of 700 miles an hour. We have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that we are lost. The good news is that we are making excellent time!’”

Today man, and in particular scientists, think they can do just about anything. And in a world where cloning, artificial fertilization and the breaking of the geno-code have been accomplished who can blame them? One thing they have lost sight of, however, is that just because they can do things doesn’t mean they should.

Medical technology is an especially difficult subject to deal with since human life has become so devalued and morals have been discarded. This stems from the evolutionary world-view that is so predominant today. It says man is just the product of random, chance, chemical reactions with no real purpose, but survival of the fittest.

So in order to deal with medical ethics, we first need to know the truth about man. We need to know the biblical view of what man is and what his purpose is. Without this foundation we might as well agree with abortion and all of the wickedness in the medical practice that is going on today. I will not pretend to know all of the answers to the moral questions, nor will I pretend to have great medical knowledge, but I will to the best of my ability apply the biblical principles. Medical issues do not only face doctors, they face all of us and we need to be prepared.

John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics, 2^nd Edition. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1993), p.1.

Ibid, p.1