Challenges in Bioethics

Here is a reflection on the challenges that Catholics today face in the realm of bioethics. It is written by a medical doctor who is now a Legionary of Christ priest and an assistant professor of bioethics at the Regina Apostolorum University.
* * *
“Since neither the neonate nor the fish is a person, killing these beings is not morally as negative as killing a person.” -Peter Singer, professor of ethics at Princeton
"I think you should be able to do all you can to improve human life, I don't see genetics as offending the gods, as I don't think there are any gods out there." -James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA.
“The Christian right’s wrongheaded invocation of religion to restrict stem-cell research ranks up there with the medieval sanctioning of Galileo because his scientific views conflicted with church doctrine.” -Newsweek
What do these provocative statements have in common?  They all relate to the themes of life and death in the recent discipline called bioethics.  Shocking as these statements might seem, they come from influential shapers of opinion in today’s society.  Unfortunately, many Catholics are still unaware of the tremendous cultural debate that has gone on in the last 40 years.  Pope John Paul II has called this a struggle between the “Culture of Death” and the “Culture of Life.” 
Bioethical Issues: Tip of the Iceberg
Bioethics began 40 years ago when medical technology was making great strides.  Physicians, lawyers, politicians and religious leaders had to address the controversies that arose.  Abortion, contraception, euthanasia, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) were debated then, and they have not abated since.
Medicine developed at an even faster pace in the next few decades, bringing with it novel and complex dilemmas.  Every day, the news reports on the latest advances on cloning, stem cells, genetic manipulation, and other cutting edge breakthroughs.  Debates are heard on every continent regarding the use of the abortion pill RU486, the morning after pill, condom to prevent AIDS, criteria to determine brain death, and the sales of organs.  At the same time, many legislatures have to decide on same sex marriages, protection of the environment, and the safety of genetically modified foods.
On the horizon, the latest technologies are ushering in a new set of concerns: creating hybrids and chimeras, eugenic selection of embryos using preimplantational genetic diagnosis (PGD), designer babies, nanotechnology, neuroscience, regenerative medicine and rejuvenation, or interfacing the brain with computer.  It seems that there is no end to these novelties.  Can ethics catch up to the velocity of these innovations?
Most often than not, these topics can have political implications.  States, nations and international organizations have set up laws, guidelines and policies to determine the availability and the limits of these modern technologies.  Unfortunately, since their impact on our living is so great, these innovations are often tied to the financial interests of multinationals and other powerful stakeholders.  This often complicates ethical decisions.  Neutral, objective voices that are not influenced by monetary or political concerns are needed now more than ever.
At a first glance, it seems that there is no end to the list of bioethical issues confronting humanity these days.  Every new scientific breakthrough that brings a certain benefit will inevitably bring with it some ethical dilemma.  It is a double-edged sword.  In fact, the challenges of bioethics we have mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg.
I am sure we have seen picture of icebergs.  The part that is above the waterline, the tip of the iceberg, is only 10% of the entire iceberg.  In the same way, bioethical problems are deeper that they appear.  New concerns will continue to surface as science pushes forward.  However, these questions are just the tip of the iceberg.
A War of Ideas
The deeper problems that we often do not hear in the media -- the 90% of the iceberg we don’t see -- are the ones that we need to analyze.  They deal with human nature and dignity, the common good we all seek, our mortality and the meaning of suffering and death.  In other words, they are preeminently profound questions on human destiny, and are ultimately religious ones.
In its long philosophical and theological tradition, the Catholic Church has come up with very valid reflections on these interrogatives.  However, there are serious challenges to these responses today, as the quotes at the beginning of the article indicate. What are the disagreements in this war of ideas?  I see five interrelated challenges in bioethics at the moment.
1)    Scientific positivism.  Since the Enlightenment, the idea that science is invariably progressive and beneficial to mankind has taken hold.  If this were the case, then no restrictions should ever be placed on any kind of research, especially ethical or religious limits.  Some calls this the “technological imperative” -- science and technology must be allowed to go forward at all costs.  This is the rationale given by the British government to create human-animal hybrids two years ago.  Another example is President Obama’s recent decision to allow government funding on embryonic stem cell research even though alternatives are now available.  Scientific positivism is an ideology that is too optimistic about the power of science to cure all ills.  But in fact, science can be used for good or evil -- as the atomic bomb has shown.  Science is not blind; its direction depends on the ethical integrity of individuals who make them.
2)    Technology and manipulation of human nature.  The scientific worldview is so prevalent nowadays that we tend to see everything in terms of physical matter.  We even risk seeing human beings as a bundle of cells, tissues and organs.  Technology has allowed us to manipulate nature for our personal comfort and well-being -- airplanes, internet, medicine are some examples.  However, with the advance of biotechnology, we can modify our very selves, our own nature -- to live longer, to have greater memory or IQ, to enhance our genetic makeup or athletic abilities, and to select similar traits for our offspring.  This possibility is unprecedented: by modifying ourselves, we modify our humanity.  But who is to decide what is truly human?  Are we not playing God when we try to shape man according to our whims?  If we seek only to improve physical or intellectual characteristics, are we not all the poorer in ignoring our spiritual dimensions -- our ability to love and to dream, to act nobly and even heroically by sacrificing our lives when the situation demands it?
3)    Utilitarianism.  In a consumerist society, money and financial interests easily prevail over ethical concerns.  Utilitarianism is a theory that attaining the best possible consequences -- that which provides the greatest good for the greatest number of persons -- is considered the ethical course of action.  Therefore, if we could save the lives of one hundred persons by killing one individual, the ends will justify the means.  Hence, as the argument goes, killing surplus embryos leftover from IVF and use them in research is ethical because it may provide cures of diseases for many people. According to this reasoning, we should also allow taking organs from the comatose, those in persistent vegetative states, anencephalic babies and even prisoners waiting for executions.  This logic is already prevalent in some hospitals which, against the family wishes, refuse to treat those they considered as “futile care” because these patients are either too old, too sick or have very poor “quality of life.”  Would it not be better to let them die than prolong their “miserable existence” which also wastes valuable healthcare resources?
4)    Moral relativism.  We live in a globalized world.  People of different religions and cultures often live in the same neighbourhood and work side by side.  This ethnic pluralism and multiculturalism has been unjustifiably translated into moral relativism.  It means that there are no absolutes in the moral life since every culture has a different conception of what is good and right.   Thus, moral decisions are conditioned by a person’s background, upbringing and culture and we cannot impose onto others their views of rightness and wrongness.  In pluralistic and cosmopolitan societies, laws must be kept to a minimal to maintain peace and promote tolerance of the differences.  Freedom is exalted as the greatest good and everyone should be given the choice to do what they like (e.g. abortion on demand).   This is in contrast to Catholic moral teaching which affirms the existence of a common human nature in the presence of cultural diversities.  This common nature allows everyone to discover the law written within the intimacy of his conscience to do what is right and avoid what is evil.
5)    Secularization.  In the past, religion played an important role in determining ethical behaviour.  In western societies especially, the separation of Church and state was deemed a necessity because religion was considered divisive and causes of frequent violent conflicts.  Therefore, there has been an aggressive campaign to marginalize and discredit the religious voice in bioethics.  The last quote at the top portrays the Christian view as anti-science by appealing to the aforementioned scientific positivist mentality that is so common in our day.  Unfortunately, even Catholic educational institutes and universities have been affected by secularism.  Many of them have watered down their Catholic identity and no longer have the intellectual vigour to defend the Church’s teaching.  In fact, secular approaches to bioethics are as common in public universities as Catholic ones.
Culture of Death and Culture of Life
Academic bioethics is 90% secular at the present moment.  It is very much contrary to the Church’s understanding of the human person with a common nature and with intrinsic dignity.  It roundly rejects any recourse to past traditions, including the Hippocratic Oath that physicians used to swear upon graduation from medical schools.  Soaked in moral relativism and utilitarianism, secular bioethics can justify anything as ethical, even the most atrocious acts such as infanticide put forward by Peter Singer.
This Australian professor of “ethics” who has taught generations of students in Princeton since 1999 is serious about killing babies when their parents do not want them.  He even published a book defending this idea as a natural extension of abortion practices.  His views are influential.  Besides teaching at a prestigious university, he has written dozen other books and sold over half a million copies.  The scary part is that he is not alone in this thinking, a long list of “ethicists” teaching in Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and other ivy-league universities share similar views on infanticide.
We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg.  If these ideas, the bulk of the ice under the water level, were to surface, there will be much more insidious proposals for the future of the human race.
Fortunately, many people are finding the secular thinking a dead end street, no longer adequate to address today’s ethical demands.  Others are re-evaluating the place of religion in ethics.  Since the Church has had centuries of experience in addressing the mystery of suffering and sickness, death and immortality, this wisdom is too precious to ignore.  The Church can be prophetic and speak out against injustices to defend the dignity and rights of every human person, irrespective of their race, backgrounds, physical conditions, and age, from conception to natural death.  It could well fulfil that non-partisan, neutral voice in the world that is unencumbered by financial or political interests.
Christians too, can play an important part in this struggle by their prayers and service.  The work of serving the weakest, poorest and most neglected of the society—the disabled, the abandoned, women in distress, drug addicts, orphans, the aged and dying—is an eloquent testimony that every member of the human race has inherent dignity.
There is also a special calling for Catholics to defend life by studying and spreading the Church’s teaching on these matters.  The laity, especially health care professionals, lawyers, politicians and scientists should update themselves on the different Church pronouncements on life issues.  Now more than ever, there is a need of renewal in Catholic education to re-emphasize these perennial truths of the human person.  Catholic intellectuals must stand up and engage the secularists in public debates, publications and conferences.
With the immensity of the problems facing humanity, we can no longer remain idle.  This, then, is the challenge that Pope John Paul II has called upon us -- to create a “Culture of Life.”
* * *
Fr. Joseph Tham, LC is Assistant Professor of the School of Bioethics at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical university in Rome, Italy.  He practiced as a family physician before becoming a priest, and now teaches bioethics. He can be reached at jtham@legionaries.org

Barry Swartz - Virtue Ethics

Ethics of stem cell research

Benedict XVI is acknowledging the temptations facing scientists who seek cures for degenerative illnesses, but he says that not even one human life can be destroyed for the benefit of another.

The Pope said this Saturday in an address to some 250 participants in an international conference on "Adult Stem Cells: Science and the Future of Man and Culture." The symposium was promoted by the Pontifical Council for Culture in collaboration with the U.S. Stem for Life Foundation.

The three-day meeting examined the use of adult stem cells in medicine, both from the perspective of science, and from that of its cultural, ethical and anthropological implications.

The Holy Father recalled that, because of human beings' immortal souls, "there are dimensions of human existence that lie beyond the limits of what the natural sciences are competent to determine."

And, while recognizing the desire to find cures for illnesses, acknowledging that "it is tempting for scientists and policy-makers to brush aside ethical objections and to press ahead with whatever research seems to offer the prospect of a breakthrough," still, he affirmed, "those who advocate research on embryonic stem cells in the hope of achieving such a result make the grave mistake of denying the inalienable right to life of all human beings from the moment of conception to natural death."

"The destruction of even one human life can never be justified in terms of the benefit that it might conceivably bring to another," he stated.

The Pontiff moreover recognized the possibilities for adult stem cell research, assuring that the Church "naturally offers her encouragement to those who are engaged in conducting and supporting research of this kind, always with the proviso that it be carried out with due regard for the integral good of the human person and the common good of society."

"Dialogue between science and ethics is of the greatest importance in order to ensure that medical advances are never made at unacceptable human cost," he said.

Benedict XVI clarified that the Church's efforts to draw attention to the defenseless is not only an endeavor to protect the unborn, but also those who do not have easy access to expensive medical treatments.

"Illness is no respecter of persons," he said, "and justice demands that every effort be made to place the fruits of scientific research at the disposal of all who stand to benefit from them, irrespective of their means."

'You Are a Wonderful Gift' - Population tops 7bn

'You Are a Wonderful Gift'

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 7 - While Oct. 31 found those in some circles worried over the birth that day of the 7 billionth person on earth (according to United Nations calculations), the Vatican spokesman had a different message for the child: You are unique and special, you are a wonderful gift, you are a miracle, and so you are welcome.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi addressed his weekly editorial to the 7 billionth child, framing this milestone in a context entirely different than those prognosticating population woes.

"Dear baby number 7 billion! I don't know if you are a girl or a boy, whether you are Indian or Chinese, born in a great city or a tiny village. I don't know if you were born in the fertile South American lowlands or under an igloo above the arctic circle. I don't know if you were born on a remote island, or in a refugee tent. I don't know whether you are healthy or sick or handicapped. I don't know whether both your parents were there to embrace you at your birth, or whether your mother alone was there to hold you. I don't know whether people will say there are too many or too few of you and your contemporaries. Today, I don't care about that," the Jesuit wrote.

Father Lombardi admitted the world that this child is coming into is "a bit complicated" and "not friendly for everyone."

"We haven't done a very good job preparing it for you," he said.

In an allusion to the Group of 20 meeting, the priest noted that "the leaders of the richest and most powerful nations are sitting around a table, struggling to find a way forward. We too are asking ourselves about your future."

"But today," he continued, "I want to tell you that you are unique and special, that you are a wonderful gift, that you are a miracle, that your spirit will live for ever, and so you are welcome. We hope that when you smile someone will respond to your smile, and when you cry someone will caress you. We hope you can go to school and that you won't go hungry. We hope that someone will answer your questions wisely and encourage you as you find your place in the world. We hope you will be able to love others, that you will be able to grow, and work, and live among your family, with many friends, in a nation and in a world that is free and at peace. We pray that you can understand that your life will find its fullest meaning not in this world but in the next.

"Because this is what you were born for. Your Creator and Father made you for this. We will do our part to make this possible; but you will have to do your part, too, because your future will also depend on you and the choices you make -- and it will be up to you to welcome baby 8 billion."

Sanctity of Life

This key concept can be derived three ways from our syllabus.

1. Natural Law sees the rational purpose of all human beings to preserve life. So the killing of innocent being is intrinsically wrong (against the eternal law as understood by rational creatures). The sacredness of life is a key value if humans are to flourish, individually and collectively, in society. From natural law we derive the idea of natural rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence of the thirteen American states in 1776. This appeals to "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, which among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
Aquinas would oppose abortion and euthanasia because of the consequences for human flourishing (as well as on Scriptural grounds). For example, Aquinas argues suicide is wrong because "every man is part of the community, and so, as such, he belongs to the community. Hence by killing himself he injures the community" (ST II II Q64). This relationship between our action and flourishing of the community allows the Catholic Church to proclaim that,
"Every human life is sacred, because every human person is sacred. It is in the light of this fundamental truth that the church constantly proclaims and defends the dignity of human life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death."
This right to life itself is fundamental because it forms the basis for the enjoyment of society - and Aquinas would only support capital punishment or war if a clear case can be made that it is for the common good (eudaimonia, the Greek word for happiness or flourishing).

2. Kant dedicated his life to developing a moral theory that has at its heart universal human rights. This is best illustrated by the second formulation of the categorical imperative - the principle of ends. "Treat people not merely as a means to an end but always also as an end in themselves". If we universalise our common humanity in this way we give everyone - from the humblest to the most exalted, full dignity, respect and value. A key part of this "value" is the absolute right to life. Suicide and euthanasia would be seen by Kant to be morally wrong - a contradiction in nature, creating a perfect duty of preservation of life.

3. Christian ethics. The Bible speaks of man and woman created in God's image and knit together by God in the womb (Psalm 139:6). Each human being is a unique and special creation - so special that God sent his much-loved son to give his life to bring us back from our wayward ways. We belong to God in two ways - he made us and then purchased us a second time through the blood of his Son (redemption means to "buy back" from sin). "You are not your own", says Paul, "you were bought at a price". We are like the beloved Prodigal Son who comes home after a life of waste and foolishness, to be met by a waiting Father. God alone, says Job, appoints the time of our death - this is not our choice

What Comes First, Conscience or the Pope?

Cardinal Newman Offers Well-Founded Answer. H/T Zenit

Many people consider there is little more to life than thinking as they wish and doing as they feel. They speak of "my truth" and "my conscience," refusing to acknowledge an objective moral order. Unfortunately, this cultural relativism is also prevalent among Catholics, who often wish to act according to their subjective beliefs rather than the objective teaching of the Catholic Church.

Catholics who disagree with Church teaching often attempt to find a basis for their arguments in the teachings of Blessed John Henry Newman, who was beatified by Benedict XVI last Sept. 19, and whose feast day is Oct. 9. This great teacher on moral conscience wrote, among other things, on the development of Christian doctrine, the consent of the faithful in matters of doctrine, and on the supreme role of the moral conscience.

Those who question objective truths or the Church's capacity to command obedience to these truths often misunderstand the context and content of his teaching. In particular, Cardinal Newman's notion regarding the "freedom to follow my conscience" is invoked to sanction disagreement with the Church's teaching on obedience to the Pope, artificial contraception, the question of "divorce and remarriage," ordination of women and the practice of homosexuality.

What is conscience?

Conscience is a natural faculty by which man applies what he knows of natural law and revelation to decisions regarding his choice of actions. In the Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, Cardinal Newman explained that together with revelation -- an external witness to God that comes to us through the teaching of the Pope and the magisterium -- we have conscience, an internal witness which commands man to fulfill his duty. He described conscience as a messenger from God, an internal witness of God's revelation, which like a high priest, is able to command, to judge and to bless.

The following is Cardinal Newman's description of conscience: "The rule and measure of duty is not utility, nor expedience, nor the happiness of the greatest number, nor state convenience, nor fitness, order, and the pulchrum. Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself, but it is a messenger from him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives."

Conscience is not the "self" speaking; it is the voice of God. Cardinal Newman explains that conscience is like a messenger of God speaking to us behind a veil. He even goes as far as to call it the original Vicar of Christ, attributing to it the offices of prophet, king and priest.

"Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ, a prophet in its information, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its blessings and anathemas, and, even though the eternal priesthood throughout the Church could cease to be, in it the sacerdotal principle would remain and would have a sway," said Cardinal Newman.

Father German Geissler comments on Cardinal Newman's words: "Conscience is a prophet because it tells us in advance whether the act is good or bad. It is a king because it exhorts us with authority: 'Do this, avoid that.' It is a priest because it blesses us after a good deed -- this means not only the delightful experience of a good conscience, but also the blessing which goodness brings in any case to people and to the world -- and likewise: 'condemns' after an evil deed, as an expression of the gnawing bad conscience and of the negative effects of sin on men and their surroundings. It is a principle that is written in the being of every person. It asks for obedience and refers to one outside of itself: to God -- for one's own sake and the sake of others."

Thus Cardinal Newman argues against conscience as a license for one's own utility or pleasure. Conscience is always bound to the truth. It should never be used as a justification for a self-referential interpretation of what is good and evil which cuts man off from God and his Revelation. No one can rightly say: "my conscience tells me this" in contradiction to that which God reveals in an external manner through Revelation and entrusts to the judgment of the Church.

For, instance, it is wrong to claim that "my conscience tells me the use of artificial contraception is acceptable" when God mandates in the Scriptures that sexual love is to be fruitful, and when the Church authoritatively teaches this doctrine. To sanction this choice under the notion "freedom of conscience" would be to make God's internal and external witness contradictory.

Conscience does not to decide on the truth about Natural Law or Revelation. Writer Jeff Mirus explains, "Conscience is a moral compass, not an intellectual one." It acts upon revelation and is subordinate to it. However, like Adam and Eve, men and women often wish to establish what is good and evil. Man can and does err in his moral judgments when his conscience ignores revelation.

Judgments and authority

Catholic Tradition has taught of the importance of forming one's conscience; people have the obligation to learn the truths of natural law and those revealed by God and taught by the Church. As Pope John Paul II taught in "Splendor Veritatis," there are objective moral norms that always apply. There are some negative precepts that admit of no exceptions. No "conscience" can rightly justify them.

Otherwise, a person acts on what is called "a poorly formed," or at times "deformed," conscience. The same can be said about education of children; they need to be formed at an early age in the truths of the faith, and the best source for instruction and formation in conscience is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Newman's teaching on conscience is found in his sermons and other works, but especially in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (1875), a response to his friend, William Gladstone, the prime minister of England. It was a brilliant defense of Catholic citizens in which Cardinal Newman asserted that they are loyal citizens of any just state. He explained that the Catholic religion does not keep Catholics from fulfilling their obligations as loyal citizens, and that the Holy See does not have the custom of interfering in their civic duties.

Cardinal Newman repeated the teaching of the constitution "Pastor Aeternus" of Vatican Council I, which asks Catholics for obedience to the Pope only in matters of faith and morals, and in matters of discipline and ecclesiastical government. Cardinal Newman explained that by obeying the Pope in such matters, the moral conscience is neither eliminated nor substituted by the Pope's authority.

Papal infallibility

As Vatican I asserted, the Pope's authority extends only to matters of doctrine and morals. We are obliged to believe, for example, what he teaches about the Holy Eucharist or marriage. His teaching does not extend on how to organize the water supply of a city, raise taxes, run elections, etc.

Cardinal Newman explained to his fellow Englishmen, who out of prejudice considered the teaching of the Pope's infallibility as a threat to English government or sense of pride, that this doctrine does not make Catholics puppets: did the Pope speak against Conscience in the true sense of the word, he would commit a suicidal act. He would be cutting the ground from under his feet. His very mission is to proclaim the moral law, and to protect and strengthen that "Light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world." On the law of conscience and its sacredness are founded both his authority in theory and his power in fact…I am considering here the Papacy in its office and its duties, and in reference to those who acknowledge its claims.

Cardinal Newman pointed out that so many types of acts by a Pope, such as the excommunication of a person in error or the Pope's blessing of the Spanish Armada, are not a matter of exercising his pontifical authority in an infallible manner, which would bind the faithful in conscience. Cardinal Newman wrote that Catholics are not bound by the Pope's personal character or private acts, but by his formal teaching (although it should be pointed out that, in the case of a person excommunicated, that is a canonical act that is indeed binding, whether or not it is infallible).

Difficult cases

If a scholar were to disagree with a doctrinal or moral teaching of the Church he should submit his judgment to the Church's teaching out of humility and obedience. Here too Cardinal Newman offered advice and good example. A theologian or for that matter a pastor should not create unrest among the faithful, much less confusion. Such a person should have the humility to admit that his opinion is likely mistaken, especially if the magisterium has already pronounced on the matter.

Upon being received in the Church Cardinal Newman accepted all its teachings, including the ones he did not fully understand. As the declaration of papal infallibility drew near, Cardinal Newman accepted this teaching, even if he thought that despite its truth it was not an opportune moment to make it. The English hierarchy had only just been restored in England in 1850, and there was a lot of prejudice against Catholics in England. In that country the so-called Ultramontane Catholics who advocated a temporal power by the Pope were making matters worse. In sum, Cardinal Newman thought this was not the best time for such a declaration, but he submitted to it.

Developing doctrine

"Development of doctrine" is one of Cardinal Newman's great contributions to theology. He argued that over time Catholic doctrine grows; it is explained better and conclusions are drawn from truths known earlier in time. At a cursory glance development of doctrine seems to imply that what was once held may now be shown not to be true. It would seem to undergird the idea that one can object in conscience to beliefs that later on may be shown to have been wrong in the first place. Cardinal Newman's seminal work which, in fact, actually led to his conversion on Oct. 9, 1845, argues the contrary. Cardinal Newman put forth safeguards for reaching the conclusion that a development is a true development. One of the main safeguards is, precisely, that it does not contradict earlier teaching, and another is that the new teaching was already implicit in earlier teaching. In sum development of doctrine does not support the claim the truths are subjective and therefore can be accepted or rejected by a Christian based on his own conscience.

A toast

Cardinal Newman noted that on rare occasions a person's conscience may collide with the Pope's teaching, for two reasons: 1) the Pope is attempting to teach in an area that does not really pertain to faith and morals as such, or 2) the person's conscience has not been formed properly. Cardinal Newman laid out the Church's long-standing teaching that on such occasions that person must obey his conscience, even if it is in error. Naturally, however, the person is obliged to seek the truth about the matter in question; and once he discovers the error, he must re-evaluate his position.

After providing some examples of papal statements or actions that are not infallible Cardinal Newman proceeded to make an affirmation which is often quoted to justify dissent from Church teaching: "Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink -- to the Pope, if you please -- still, to conscience first, and to the Pope afterward."

Out of context, this casts doubt on all that Cardinal Newman taught, but properly examined, we understand that there should very rarely be opposition between conscience and the Pope. Since a well-formed conscience is God's voice, Cardinal Newman naturally would give it preference in a toast.

Results are in.

Interesting results! Well done you if you are pleased with them.

If any of you want to speak to me about your results use the “Contact me” box to the right of this screen, leave me some contact details if you want me to be in touch with you before term.

Enjoy the rest of the break.

MC

Chris' video: Hume & Determinism

The moral side of murder: Train track

Michael Sandel introduces his lecture on the moral side of murder with a series of ethical dilemmas.

Good Luck Glitters : Forward This Picture

Revision request

Tomorrow (25th) we’re going to look at the whole Creation & Evolution and Irreducible Complexity area, referring to Darwin & Dawkins and others.

It's the last chance before the exam on Thursday.

MC

Special request

Tomorrow (Tues 24th) we’re going to look at Anselm, Descartes and their Ontological arguments.

Feel free to come along,

MC

REVISION

Don’t forget I am here for you for revision in our normal timetabled lessons as far as possible (though I cannot guarantee that I will not be taken for Cover/invigilation or similar). The easiest way to request that we look at a particular topic is to use the ‘Comment’ box at the bottom of each post. Anybody can use this facility not just those with BLOGGER accounts. Try to give me about 24 hours notice of specific requests.

Hope the revision is going well.

Revision

Don't just leave it to the last minute, you really do need to be getting on with it.

4 weeks 'til AS
6 weeks 'til A2

Not just a bunch of cells.

A fast moving and hard hitting video that presents us with the biological facts about human development.

H/T The Hermeneutic of Continuity

Timings

Get yourself an analogue watch to have on the table in front of you.

It saves having to do a mental calculation to work out how long you have left (you would need to do this with a digital watch) and saves the risk of being distracted by looking up at the front of the examination room.

Use your time well.

Revise-wise

You really should be getting on with it!

9 weeks 'til AS exan and
11 weeks 'til A2

Saviour siblings - the ethics addressed

Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.
Q: Could you please clarify the concept of a "savior sibling"? Some argue that a child conceived to save his older brother or sister is "conceived to be used." But the child per se is not used at all, only the child's umbilical cord. Please clarify. Sincerely, D.V.M -- Bellflower, California

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

A: Lisa Nash, mother of the world's first "savior sibling," said she would do "anything" to save her daughter's life.[1] Her daughter Molly was diagnosed at birth (in 1994) with Fanconi Anemia, a serious genetic disorder in which patients can suffer bone marrow failure, birth defects, developmental abnormalities, a heightened risk of leukemia and premature death. Lisa and her husband Jack were told that the best way to help Molly was to give her a blood and marrow transplant from a genetically matched sibling. But Molly was an only child. Her parents had been considering conceiving again, but decided against it because of the high probability -- about 25% -- that the child would suffer the same illness.

Then Lisa and Jack were told about pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), a screening procedure performed on embryos prior to implantation. Embryos are generated in a laboratory using in-vitro fertilization (IVF), then tested for the desired genetic traits; only those that are perfect matches are implanted into a female uterus. "Abnormal" embryos -- or in this case embryos not genetically matched to Molly -- are destroyed.

The Nashes agreed. After four agonizing trials, and the creation of 30 embryos, the Nashes finally got their disease-free child, Adam, an exact blood match for his sister Molly. He was born in October 2000 at Fairview Hospital in Minneapolis. Specialists successfully transferred tissue and blood from Adam's umbilical cord into Molly's body. And his sister's life was saved.

Adam is called a "savior sibling," not because -- as in the Christian use of the term -- he sacrificed his life for another, but rather because he was generated -- was brought into the world -- and selected to provide a life-saving remedy for another. His successful gestation meant the difference between life and death for Molly. After implantation, he was not subjected to disproportionately risky procedures for his sister's sake; his organs were not harvested and his body was not violated to save her; using his umbilical cord after birth was harmless to him. And although he was generated for his sister's sake, we cannot presume his parents do not love him today for his own sake, and care for him as best they can.

Yet the fact remains: 29 human embryos were sacrificed to save Molly. His mother, Lisa, stated in 2001 in an interview with CNN, "That's what we had to do for us; and I would hope that people who felt this was inappropriate would feel it was inappropriate for them and not judge me unless they've been where I've been."[2]

Now nobody would ever wish to be where the Nashes were with their daughter Molly; suffering with a child who suffers from a fatal condition such as Fanconi Anemia. Moreover, we cannot scrutinize the level of knowledge or measure of culpability of other people in doing the things they do. In this sense, we should not attempt to judge Lisa Nash's conscience.

But, we can and must make judgments about the objective morality of certain kinds of actions and condemn those actions that are objectively wrong. Moral disapproval of the eugenic selection of IVF embryos using PGD does not principally concern a 'feeling of inappropriateness.' It concerns a judgment that creating and killing human embryos for the benefit of others is always gravely wrong.

Dangerous road

All the endless rationalizing about embryos not being human, or not yet fully human, or not persons, or lacking moral worth, or not being 'like us,' have paved a dangerously tempting path for people in crisis situations to travel down. We unblinkingly focus on the benefits promised at the end of the path and avert our eyes from the monstrous injustices caused to human embryos.

Moreover, bringing a child into the world, not for his own sake but for the benefit of another treats him as a means to an end; it instrumentalizes him. This violates the moral requirement of the natural law (articulated in Kant's "Categorical Imperative" and Karol Wojtyla's "Personalistic Norm") directing that we treat other persons -- precisely because they are persons -- always as ends in themselves. The fact that a "savior sibling" may be loved and cherished after his utilitarian purpose has been served does not erase the wrong done to him in creating him for another's benefit.

Some believe this latter argument is speciously abstract. If parents intend to love the "savior sibling" as much as his older sibling, no harm, and therefore no wrong, is done to him. I would agree only this far: If parents already intended to have another child, conceived the child in licit ways, and then utilized the child's discarded umbilical cord to save another, then certainly there is no wrongdoing in this.

But parents who envisage another pregnancy precisely for the purpose of benefiting one of their other children; and who initiate the pregnancy for that purpose -- even aside from the problems of IVF and eugenic selection of embryos -- have harmed and done wrong to their child. They wronged him by not bringing him into the world as the subject of a loving communion between themselves and the child, but in the context of a relationship of "maker" to "thing made," as a useful (indeed very useful in the case of "savior siblings") instrument to serve their purposes. "But what noble purposes!" the Utilitarian always cries. Indeed, but at what moral cost?

Can anyone doubt that if after two week's gestation (or four, six, eight, 15, 22, etc.), the doctors told the parents that the only way to save the older sibling was to terminate the pregnancy and to culture the embryonic/fetal tissue for creating a life-saving serum, the parents -- having initiated the pregnancy for an instrumental purpose -- would seriously contemplate abortion. Is there any doubt that some, perhaps many, would -- in their desperation for results -- consent to the repugnant alternative? If embryos are considered disposable before implantation, what logic secures their inviolability after implantation?

Dead end

We've come a long way down this dead-end street. Today we generate embryos in vitro, grow them in Petri dishes, biopsy them, select the ones that please us most, mail them to India to be gestated, freeze them and earmark their frozen bodies for a variety of future uses; and when we no longer feel they are useful to us, we magnanimously donate them to science or flush them down the sink.

But since we all were once embryos, and in relation to the fullness of life in the Kingdom for which Christians hope, we are right now in an embryonic kind of existence; when we dehumanize them, we dehumanize ourselves and everyone else.

Can the genie ever get back in the bottle? Can we humanize the embryo in the minds of our neighbors and associates? Only with difficulty. If we've dehumanized the fetus to nine months, defending embryos will be onerous.

But encouraging signs are afoot. Just last week, the Oklahoma House passed a bill (HB 1442) that would prohibit embryo-destructive research in the state, and the Minnesota legislature is moving ahead with a bill to prohibit the cloning of human embryos, including so-called "therapeutic cloning."

In the meantime, we can always ask those tempted to run rough shod over our little brothers and sisters, "If you were an embryo, how would you want to be treated?" You know, the Golden Rule and all that.

NOTES

[1] For more information, see http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200010/18_scheckt_babies

[2] For more information, see http://articles.cnn.com/2001-06-27/health/embryo.testing_1_genetic-diagnosis-genetic-testing-genetic-defect?_s=PM:HEALTH

* * *

E. Christian Brugger is a Senior Fellow of Ethics and director of the Fellows Program at the Culture of Life Foundation; and the J. Francis Cardinal Stafford Chair of Moral Theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado.