|
CHAPTER TWO: Why
Do Bioethics?
Loretta and Bill are generous people. Every December, as they
approach the New Year, they budget several thousand dollars to give
to various charities, on top of tithe to their local church. The
United Way campaign is underway at Loretta's office. Every year
her supervisor at work strongly suggests that the entire department
contribute. "This is a way we can give back to our community,"
she says, "and besides, if we get 100% participation we get
off work at 3:00 p.m. one Friday, to have an ice cream party sponsored
by the company."
Loretta and Bill designate $50.00 for the United Way. As Loretta
seals the envelope she wonders "What organizations are covered
by contributions to UW?" As she is running late for church
choir practice, she drops the check in the mail, and hurries on.
She will check on that later.
Joey Heatherton, being a good citizen, arrives early at the voting
booth. She has voted in every election since 1972. This past week
has been extremely hectic, with the church social, the school play,
the PTA meeting, and a full-time job. Joey examines the ballot carefully.
Bo Brown, Kim Hunter, and John Lee are running for the state senate
seat. Joey thinks that the senate needs more minority representation.
She decides to vote for John Lee, a Korean-American. As she drops
her ballot in the box, she wonders, "Where does John stand
on school health clinics, the new "Right to Die" initiative
and affirmative action for medical and law schools?" No time
to think about that now, though, as she is late for the "Earth
First" business meeting.
"I am sick of people telling me what to do," screamed
Martha Jenkins at her mother. "No one should tell another person
what to think. And besides, who are you to act like you know what
is right or wrong? If it's right for me, then it's right!"
Martha's mother, Judy stood in stunned silence as Martha slammed
the door. She squealed her tires in the driveway as she sped off
to her "Catholics for Choice" meeting. Was Martha right?
The title of this chapter is really a trick question. We all make
bioethical decisions frequently, perhaps even on a daily basis.
The sad truth is, though, that we make many of these decisions without
realizing that we are deciding at all. Given this fact, we should
examine these choices carefully from a Christian perspective.
Should we support charities if we do not understand what they stand
for? Should we be involved in the political process? If so, how?
While as Christians we are called to stewardship of God's earth,
what are the underlying assumptions of Animal Rights groups in your
state? How can we know right from wrong? When we disagree with someone
based on Judeo-Christian scripture is this an example of Eurocentric,
white male arrogance? What reliable guidelines do we have for making
difficult decisions that involve people, their choices, and their
lives?
Several major methods of decision-making are used in formal and
informal bioethics. Perhaps the easiest method for Christians to
employ is deontological, or rule-based, principle-based decision-making.
Immanuel Kant was among the first to formally describe this process,
but as Jews and Christians, we come from a long line of rule-based
thinkers. We believe that God actually spoke to Moses, giving him
the Ten Commandments. We also believe that he revealed himself to
humankind through scripture, the prophets, the apostles, and most
completely through the person of Jesus Christ. We believe that we
will be held accountable for the manner in which we live by these
rules and principles. While there is a long history of dynamic tension
between Grace-but not having license to sin, or living by God's
laws-but not being slaves to legalism, Judeo-Christian tradition
has always subscribed to the strong reference of Scripture to adjudicate
our difficult questions. We should maintain this respect for Scripture.
Teleologists, or utilitarians, another major group, subscribe to
the motto "The end justifies the means." The goal of utilitarianism
is to "provide the most benefit for the greatest number of
persons." The definition of "benefit" is a bit slippery.
In addition, the underlying assumption is that this "most benefit…"
is the only rule that applies. All other concepts, such as loyalty,
integrity, respect for God, fidelity, etc., are only to be adhered
to if they help meet the goal of "benefit". Peter Singer,
who holds an endowed chair in ethics at Princeton University, is
probably the most widely known utilitarian today. He takes this
one step further by questioning the definition of "person".
According to Singer mentally handicapped and demented humans are
not persons, while baboons and chimpanzees, having capacity to learn,
grow, and establish meaningful social ties, are persons. Thus, the
seemingly simple concept of "most benefit for the greatest
number of persons" may not always mean precisely what one might
think. While Singer represents only one arm of utilitarian philosophy
today, he does clearly employ the use of its primary tenet "most
benefit to most persons."
A third contingent of bioethicists today employs a form of reasoning
that utilizes four broad principles. These principles are 1) autonomy
of the patient, client, or decision-maker, 2) beneficence, 3) non-maleficence,
and 4) justice. This approach has been labeled "Principlism."
Principlism has actually helped advance the discipline of clinical
bioethical decision-making a great deal, but has, nonetheless, some
obvious drawbacks. These principles are not always easy to apply.
The complexities of a given dilemma may not easily be captured in
these four principles. Over time other major schools have arisen,
including casuistry (deciding each complex case by the particular
merits of the case), virtue-based ethics (trusting in the virtue
of the given decision-maker), and others.
I believe that we as Christians should always refer back to our
four guideposts: Scripture, Reason, Experience and Tradition. As
Christians entering the public bioethics debate, no one can stop
us from using these guides as we formulate our positions. However,
as we engage our world we must anticipate that they will roundly
reject Scripture as a basis for authority and will scoff at our
religious Experiences and Traditions. We must therefore be able
to articulate reasoned, essentially religion-neutral arguments if
we hope to persuade persons antagonistic to our faith. Paul said
that we must use various means to win sinners to Christ. While we
must never abandon our guides in forming our position, we may need
to create our public discourse based more on reasonable tenets that
will immediately have purchasing power in the secular arena.
What does the Bible say about making bioethical decisions? Let's
look and see.
Scripture and Discussion Questions
Genesis 1:1
John 1:1
Genesis 11:1-8
Romans 3:10-12
Psalm 37:5,6
Proverbs 2:6
1) Genesis 1 and 2 talk about God creating the earth. Does this
have any bearing on our bioethical thinking and discussions today?
Does evolutionary theory (Darwinism), which is primarily a biological
theory have any bearing on the philosophical theory of relativism?
2) John 1 begins the whole story with God in Christ, followed by
creation. What kind of statement does this make about humanism?
Pantheism?
3) What is Genesis 11 really talking about? Is this important today?
This is a difficult passage to understand, but some people believe
that humans were attempting to "play God" in this passage.
Are we "playing God" when we get involved in genetic engineering,
for instance?
4) Many people speak about the basic goodness of humankind. What
does the Holy Spirit, through Paul, say about this? (We live in
a fallen world.)
5) Psalm 37 discusses truly committing our way to God. How might
this passage effect the way that you carry forth bioethical discourse?
6) Think about Proverbs 2:6. If a person begins his or her thought
process with the presupposition that there is no god, how will this
effect their thinking, and the answers they get?
7) Scripture tells us that our right hand should not know the good
deed that our left hand is doing. Does this apply to public charities
(should you refuse to have your name listed as a benefactor for
the community theater?) or gifts to Christian organizations?
8) What principles does scripture give us on "affirmative
action"? Might godly believers end up on both sides of this
question?
9) Is socialism Biblical? Defend your answer from scripture.
10) Is the concept of "separation of church and state"
a Biblical pattern?
11) Is there any scriptural warrant for the concept of a "right
to die"?
Comments
1) Some Christians feel that giving to organizations like United
Way, which includes groups like Planned Parenthood, is evil. Others
feel that if Christians abandon philanthropic efforts of a secular
nature they are failing to engage society, and that if so, society
is right in condemning us. This controversy might be worth exploring.
2) We should be good stewards of all that we are or have: time,
energy and money. Explore how this statement applies to the study
of bioethics.
3) Challenge your group to become more informed voters. Discuss
the importance or possible shortcomings of political groups that
print up candidate "report cards".
4) Some environmental groups base much of their action on a pantheistic
"world view". People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
believe that the worth of any given animal is equal to that of any
given human. This is not a scriptural pattern.
5) Martha Jenkins's position is relativistic, humanistic, and post-modern.
These terms are worth exploring with your group.
6) Many Christians say that they base their decisions on scripture,
but when we closely examine their decisions, we discover they are
often based on potential consequences. This is a type of utilitarianism.
This whole issue is worth exploring.
7) Justice means different things to different people. To many
in emerging nations and in less affluent segments of American society
it refers to distribution of land and material goods.
8) Some Christians feel that if we abandon a prophetic role in
proclaiming that God's word as the basis for our decision-making
that we are denying God. Others feel that it is our duty to reach
anyone by any ethical means. Godly people may end up in either camp.
Discuss historical examples from each camp.
PRAYER REQUESTS
As you close today's lesson together, pray that God will help you
realize the many times that you are, in fact, doing bioethics. Pray
that God will give you wisdom to recognize the dilemmas as ethical,
and that you will have the humility to continually seek God's wisdom
and knowledge in difficult decisions.
For Further Reading:
Robert Audi and Nicholas Wolterstorff, Religion in the Public Square-The
Place of Religious Convictions in Political Debate (New York: Rowman
and Littlefield Publishers, 1997). These two highly respected philosophers,
while both coming from Christian roots, offer surprisingly different
perspectives on where religious convictions and discourse belong
in the political arena. If you wish to prayerfully reflect on your
personal role in the public dialogue, this book will provide valuable
food for thought.
Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, in How Now Shall we Live? (Wheaton,
Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1999), offer many vivid examples
of Christians engaging the secular world, without the use of peculiarly
Christian rhetoric in the debate. One of the primary tools Colson
encourages us to use is the appeal to Natural Law. Colson, founding
director of Prison Ministries and author of several best-selling
books says that he considers this his "magnum opus."
C. S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity (London, England: Simon and Schuster,
1952), offers perhaps one of the best examples of this century of
tightly-reasoned, logical, persuasive arguments for the existence
of God and his work in the lives of human beings. In their original
form, the chapters of these three brief books in one volume were
aired between 1943-45 over British radio. The original title of
this combined work, as published in England, was Broadcast Talks.
G. K. Chesterton, in Saint Thomas Aquinas "The Dumb Ox"
(New York, New York: an Image Book, by Doubleday, 1933), explores
the life and thought of a great Roman Catholic thinker and leader
who brought the concept of Natural Law to life in the Catholic church.
Aquinas knew more scripture than almost anyone of his day, but solidly
argued that God and the eternal truths of scripture can be proven
through reason, apart from the use of Scripture. Martin Luther,
a few years later, reportedly burned Aquinas's works in public.
Nicholas Wolterstorff, Reason Within the Bounds of Religion (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984) addresses mainly
the two concepts of Reason and Religion. A careful reading of this
work, however, reveals that his concept of Religion includes Scripture,
Tradition and Experience. Thus, while a firm believer in the power
of Reason, he relegates it to a position bounded by the other three
elements of Wesley's quadrilateral.
Donald A. D. Thorsen, The Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Indianapolis,
Indiana: Light and Life Communications, 1997). Dr. Thorsen, of Azusa
Pacific University, offers an excellent treatment of the four sides
of the quadrilateral. Most Christians are aware of the essential
elements contained in the areas of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition.
This work has an illuminating review of Wesley's thoughts on Experience
including "introspection, self-analysis, private conscious
states and other means." While a firm believer in faith's reliance
on both "evidence of religious experience…and not …reason
alone" he seemed to fear the overvaluation of feelings, mysticism
and "enthusiasm." While the entire book is worth reading,
his chapter on Experience is particularly worth exploring.
|
