Technological inroads into the beginnings of human life: Social, ethical and religious repercussions D Gareth Jones.

Technological inroads into the beginnings of human life: Social, ethical and religious repercussionsD Gareth Jones

Introduction

‘Human life is sacred from conception’

Regarded by some as foundational for Christian witness

Propounded with assurance; biblical concept?

Sacredness of human life from first glimmerings (what does this claim mean?)

Introduction

‘Human life is sacred from conception’

Is this position necessary to keep in check the rampant run-away forces of modern science?

Should our worldview depend upon it?

Many accept the sacredness-conception combination as basic dogma

Should it be mark of faithfulness to Christian fundamentals?

Relevance to reproductive technology debates

Introduction

Multifaceted challenges

Biblical teaching

Place of scientific concepts in theological thinking

Pastoral issues

The ARTs in historical context

Manufacturing Humans: The

Challenge of the New Reproductive

Technologies


Scientific developments continue to outstrip the ability of our ethical (and theological) systems to cope with them

Modern medicine – hopes; perils

What room is left for God and faith?

Increasing life expectancy and overcoming infertility – more dependent on technology than God’s grace


1989 > 400,000 children born via IVF Today c. 4 million

Technological developments

development of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI); enabling older women to have children

health status of IVF children; rare genetic ‘imprinting’ disorders


1989 - preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) developed; selection of embryos; eugenics?

1998 – embryonic stem cells first derived from human embryos; dominate debate on ARTs especially in theological circles


1997 - birth of Dolly (first cloned mammal)

Dire warnings predicting the end of humanity as we know it


1987 - therapeutic or research cloning unknown

Today- seen as the way forward for regenerative medicine’; threat to human dignity?


1987 - chimeras and hybrids part of Greek mythology or science fiction

Today - serious science; vociferous objections by Christian groups to ‘inter-species embryos’


1980s - 8% of babies born at 23 weeks’ gestation and 40-45% of those born at 28 weeks survived

Today - 50% of babies born at 23 weeks survive and 80% of those born at 28 weeks

Responses to IVF in the mid-1980s

1984 - Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Warnock Report)

Human embryos have special status, but not equal to that of actual persons

Research on human embryos allowed up to 14 days


Infertility is condition meriting treatment

IVF and donor insemination are established treatments

Egg and embryo donation acceptable with provisos


Oliver O’Donovan, Begotten or Made? (1984)

“When we start making human beings we necessarily stop loving

them; . . . that which is made rather than begotten becomes something that we have at our disposal, not

someone with whom we can engage in brotherly fellowship.”


“I do not know how to think of an IVF child except . . . as the creature of the doctors

who assisted at her conception.”

Oliver O’Donovan (1984)


Thomas Torrance, Test-Tube Babies (1984)

“What is at stake is nothing less than the future of the human race, but what

also at stake is the integrity of the scientific and moral conscience. . .

Medical science has brought us to an ultimate boundary beyond which a civilised and God-fearing society

committed to the sanctity of marriage and the structure of the human family,

may not go.”


A number of church bodies took an uncompromisingly negative view of IVF

Pontifical Academy for Life (2004)ARTs “constitute an unworthy method for the coming forth of a new life, whose beginning

depends . . . in large measure on the technical action of third parties outside the couple and takes place in a context totally

separated from conjugal love.”


Up to 14 days human embryos not entitled to same respect and protection as embryo implanted in uterus

Accept use of surplus IVF embryos in research

Board of Social Responsibility of the General Synod of the Church of England (1985) supported most of the recommendations of Warnock Report

Responses to the ARTs post-2000

The science has moved on dramatically

Is theological debate of 2010 different from that of 1987?

Little has changed; those who accepted IVF tend to accept PGD etc; those who saw IVF as entering illicit divine territory are appalled at subsequent developments


Roman Catholicism

Donum Vitae (1987) – IVF rejected because of use of artificial means to achieve conception

Dignitas Personae (2008) – does not challenge artificiality; human life is personal from conception onwards; protects dignity of embryo

Other reproductive techniques rejected on a variety of grounds


Roman Catholicism

ICSI - domination of technology

Embryo freezing – embryos may be harmed

Freezing of oocytes – permits ARTs

PGD – eugenics

Embryo destruction – injustice

Embryo donation – illicit family relationships


Shannon and Walter, The New Genetic Medicine (2003)

Willing to wrestle with new scientific findings

Individual not present until 2-3 weeks after fertilization

“[w]hile the preimplantation embryo contains the appropriate genetic information for the organism’s

development, that genetic information is not necessarily associated with a specific individual

and cannot, therefore, claim moral privilege through such an association. The genetic

uniqueness is associated with what is common to all – human nature – not a particular individual

because such an entity does not yet exist”

Shannon and Walter (2003)


The early embryo is valuable due to its human genetic code and genetic uniqueness

The preimplantation embryo has premoral value

Allow embryo research (including embryonic stem cell research and therapy; therapeutic cloning)


Seek to reinterpret traditional theological viewpoints in the light of contemporary scientific understanding

Do not wish to weaken the religious tradition, but speak in contemporary terms


Celia Deane-DrummondConcerned about the gap opening between official pronouncements and pastoral care

Problems alleged without empirical assessment

Alternative approach: recovery of prudence within ethic of feminist care


Ann Marie MealeyCriticizes outdated physicalist version of natural law, and excessive concern with ‘eugenic mentality’

Should lay groundwork for responding todevelopments and protecting ‘common good’

All three contributions wish to make Christian faith more relevant in contemporary biomedical debates



Protestantism

Hostility towards ARTs often taken as representing the Christian view

Hui, At the Beginning of Life: Dilemmas in

Theological Ethics (2002)

Evangelical, and intensely conservative

The human soul is present at conception

Concerned that science has replaced God

opposition to any technological inroads into the reproductive process

ARTs force God to accept the child when he has not given that gift of life

human embryo research is unacceptable


Science and theology are staring one another in the face

Many evangelical exponents of prohibitionist stances; embryo protection framework

Stephen Bellamy (2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill)

Populist evangelical literature opposes PGD, tissue typing, cybrid and hybrid embryos

Complete protection from fertilization onwards


Absolutist view of status of in vitro embryo

No unanimity on IVF

Cautionary approach; alternative evangelical views ignored

Pastoral concerns: apparent certainty and rigidity of absolutist views creates unnecessary heartache for those faced with infertility

Impression that there is only one orthodox evangelical view


“We […] must be unashamed and unafraid for […] unbiased medical technology is on our side. Time is on our side. The Bible is on our side. God

is on our side. And if God be for us, who an be against us?”

Other views are ignored

Christian position is prohibitionist one

Kendall (2002)


“Too many Christians turn a blind eye to the destruction of embryos in IVF and to the harsh and grotesque reality that this technology also means the destruction of human life ”

IVF out of bounds for faithful Christians

Mohler (2008)


Ted Peters, Sacred Cells? Why Christians Should Support Stem Cell Research, 2008

Three contending frameworks: embryo protection human protection future wholeness


God’s eschatological call to become what we are destined to be

Gifts given us by God

Human dignity conferred by God; we are to confer it on others; relational in character

Future orientation: dignity is derived more from destiny than from origin

Conferring dignity on someone who does not yet experience it, is gesture of hope


Beneficence – what groups might benefit from embryo research?

Melding of divine action and human response

Dignity is not regarded as an automatic outworking of genetic characteristics

Theological framework – God’s love for all; eschatological hope based on God’s promises

The good of others in the community may trump the good of embryos


Exploring the borderlands

Traditional perspective: err on the side of caution

Technology intrudes into every facet of our existence

Do we have theological quibbles when we take a pill to subdue pain or bring blood pressure under control?

The quality of our lives is improved compared with 100 years ago


BUT

Some of the effects of the ARTS may be dehumanizing (note responses to Robert Edwards’s 2010 Nobel Prize)

Fragmentation of families

Deeply troubling commercial pressures

Problems due to instant gratification; serving one’s own interests; need to accept givenness and giftedness of our existence; lack of concern for poor and neglected


The development of ARTs is scientifically driven and their application is community driven

A Christian commitment should be directed at arguing for ways in which the technologies should be applied rather than in whether the technologies should or should not exist

See people in their wholeness and treat them accordingly: with respect, dignity and preciousness in God’s sight

Have to learn to live alongside those with different outlook from ours (including within Christian community)


“Just as you do not know how the breath comes to the bones in the mother’s womb, so you do

not know the work of God, who makes everything.”

Ecclesiastes 11: 5

Profound uncertainties

Perplexity of our beginnings is set to increase, not decrease

Addendum on the role of the Bible

Concepts not from Scripture

precautionary principle genetic uniqueness of embryodangers of procedurespopulation imbalancelack of cures from embryo research

Pragmatic and scientific


Additional theological arguments:

Christian ethics based on God’s revelation Christian hope over medical interventionmade in God’s image all human life equally valuable Children special gift from God value of embryo determined by God’s grace God does not improve upon what he has already done


Two characteristics:

open to competing interpretationsfail to provide specific options for bioethical practice

Different theological positions reflect differences in scientific understanding and interpretation as much as differences in theological worldviews

Changes in theological perspective following changes in the science?

Technological inroads into the beginnings of human life: Social, ethical and religious repercussions D Gareth Jones.

Documents

days slide

introduction human life

sacredness of human

gods grace slide

human fertilisation

human dignity

human beings

beginnings of human