Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
stewardship—also prominent in environmental ethics—to argue that
humanity may “freely interfere with and manipulate the function of his
bios
(biological life) and psyche insofar as this does not degrade him or
diminish his or his fellowmen's dignity and freedom.”
41
A cursory look at Catholic writing in medical ethics suggests that it
supports Haring's position. For example, Benedict Ashley and Kevin
O'Rourke, both at St. Louis University, wrote in
Health Care Ethics
that
God, in giving us intelligence, regards us as “co-workers and encourages
[us] to exercise real originality.”
42
Even Charles Curran, who takes a gen-
erally conservative position, has said, “The genius of modern man and
woman is the ability toward self-creation and self-direction.”
43
Curran,
however, like other Catholic theologians, would limit genetic interven-
tions at first to somatic therapy (which virtually no one opposes), and
allow it for germ line therapy only to relieve “defects” as these are rather
narrowly understood; he would rule out “improvements” that suggest
individuals are valued instrumentally rather than as ends in themselves.
It is not clear whether striking differences in the concept of humans as
cocreators within Catholic theology have practical implications for the
kinds of interventions deemed acceptable.
The relevant literature in Protestant theology is vast and represents a
wide variety of views. Topics with titles such as
Fabricated Man
and
Brave New People
emphasize the risk that genetic engineering will rob
humanity of its freedom by substituting human purpose (an instrumen-
tal ethic) for divine purpose (creation) or no purpose (evolution).
44
James
A. Nash, executive director of the Center for Theology and Public Policy,
explicitly connects discussions of ecological integrity in environmental
ethics to allow genetic interventions for the sake of perfecting or redeem-
ing creation, not for reshaping it to human purposes. He asks, “Is the
whole of nature to be defined by human purposes and subject to human
improvements?”
45
Like Ian Barbour and Deter Hessel, Nash takes a cautious approach,
also reflected in various documents issued by the World Council of
Churches, that counsels against germ line therapy except in very special
cases where the therapeutic as distinct from eugenic purpose is absolutely
clear.
46
Nash makes the additional point that some genetic interventions,
although important in preventing a disease in certain individuals, are
really inconsequential
sub specie aeternitatis
. He reminds us that “the
