How far would you go to save your own life? Would you take the life of another to save your own? How should a Christian handle the idea of human cloning? Just because we can do a thing, should we do that thing? These questions haunt our minds and hearts as we consider the ethics of how far we have come with respect to biology and science around life. DNA has been cracked by modern science. The human genome is being mapped already. Before long, science will offer us cures for illnesses that have long plagued our world. But at what cost? Will we be willing to compromise our humanity to achieve great medical breakthroughs, or perhaps just our Christian ideals?
Organ donation is a relatively new ability in our world. It has only been around for about a hundred years. Go back more than that and those requiring a new heart, or other critical organ, would simply die of their conditions. Some organs are able to be harvested from live donors without significant loss of quality of life such as kidneys, etc. Others like human hearts can only be harvested from poor souls who have died recently or are brain dead. We look on those willing to donate these organs as “giving” the greatest gift of life to those in need. But what if this sacrifice was no longer needed? If scientists were able to advance our abilities in human organ cloning, it may one day be possible for medical personnel to grow a new heart from a cell harvested from our own bodies. With the added ability of genetic manipulation, they may also be able to remove any inherent defects in the newly grown organ before transplant occurs. How far would we go to see this goal achieved? Imagine the worldwide impact of this kind of cloned organ transplant.
Genetic manipulation itself is studied with the intent of curing disease and removing potential threats from us and our offspring. The goals are lofty, and seem beneficial to our society. But our fear of the unknown makes us cautious in our pursuit of scientific achievement, perhaps rightfully so. Despite best intentions, sometimes fairly horrific acts are committed in the “name” of science. Hitler’s regime conducted “research” on the limits of a human to cope with pain. His results are regularly employed in today’s torture implementations. The “scientific” experiments he had conducted were nothing short of horrific and have had little beneficial value (if any) in our modern world. All he seemed to achieve in the name of science was pain and suffering and needless death. But to think only Hitler was capable of this is to ignore our own nations “research” into deliberately giving men venereal diseases, or deliberately giving American citizens radioactive poisons to study their effects on the population. Our own government in times past has done regrettable things under the guise of scientific research.
In truth it is not the science behind cures and potential cures we fear, it is the reality of how humans use knowledge in harmful ways over others that we fear. Nuclear technology could have been employed for power production only, but instead it was first used as a massive weapon. Now the world lives in fear of a rogue nation or group deploying such a weapon. Millions could die from it. Our history and track record where it comes to scientific breakthroughs is not one of stellar success where mankind was benefited unconditionally. Today, many believe that medical cures are no longer a topic of research. Instead “treatments” are sought, that will captivate patients into lifelong commitment to drug regimens that will maintain drug company profits well into the future. So while the promise of human cloning and genetic manipulation seem to offer us much, we remain skeptical based on our historical applications of new scientific information.
This is not a new problem. It is theorized that after the fall of Adam and Eve, subsequent generations using 100 percent of their brain capacity and having nearly unlimited access to raw materials may well have cracked DNA prior to the flood. The blending of human with animal species told of in our myths and legends may have a basis in our distant past. The blending of animal species combined with genetic manipulation could well have resulted in the genesis of dinosaurs prior to the flood. It would also explain why God chose not to preserve any of the species in the ark that He did not create. It may also explain why the numbers of dinosaur remains are rarely found in great numbers. Granted it is all speculation based on our understanding of Biblical teachings and the evidence we have uncovered to date (something which evolutionists would predictably dispute). But if the theory has merit, it would imply that genetic manipulation is not always used to ennoble mankind, but rather to have him explore his baser ideas.
Where it comes to bio-ethics, the weightier questions center around the cost and value of human life, or even animal life. If one person is killed to save a thousand, is it worth it? Perhaps not if YOU are the person slated for death, particularly if you are given no choice in the matter. Those who would believe the loss of one life is worth the saving of a thousand are more likely to lower those numbers significantly before the equation breaks down. Often it may simply come down to - better you than me. It is this willingness to sacrifice the lives of others to preserve our own that form the basis for ethical conflict on this topic. For those of us more tenderhearted the same argument is applied to lesser species of life such as animals. While we do not discard the idea of animal testing on medical research, we seem to object more readily to cosmetic companies torturing animals to insure their products will have less adverse effects on their human customers. At its base is the ethical question what is one life worth?
Christ laid down His life to save all of mankind. But He chose to do so. No one forced Him, or compelled Him to redeem a race that had rejected Him and broken trust with Him. It was love unbound that motivated that decision. In it, He does not compel us to do the same. The Bible does not ask us to die for others, yet often love motivates mankind to do just that. Soldiers on the battlefield give all to save their comrades. People who they have only met in service to their country become like brothers to them, friends who they will sacrifice all to protect. Men make choices to save others by laying down their own lives. But none of it should be compulsory. It is the tendency of science to create scenarios where choice is not offered. The “research” is considered of more value to humanity, than the humans that will suffer to see the research completed.
The example of Christ is not one to disregard a single life. Ninety nine sheep were left safely in the fold in order that one erring lost sheep could be found and carried back to the safety of the others. Each life is of such value to our Lord that He would have come and lived His life to save only one, if only one was willing to be saved. To this end our bio-ethical positions should reflect that extreme value of a single human life. Not a single human life should ever be compelled to be sacrificed in exchange for the benefit of others. The donor is as important as the recipient. Each is precious. Each must be preserved.
If human cloning requires the creation of a complete additional copy before organs would be suitable to donation, it takes the process too far and should violate our ethical standards. If the research to accomplish genetic manipulation requires adverse consequences to those involved it cannot be mandated and must be fully disclosed. In our quest to prolong and improve the quality of life we must as Christians maintain our focus on the value our Lord places in each life. We must remember that His sacrifice was enormous for each life, and so each life should be so valued. If we maintain a love-centered ideology our ethical decisions and standards will better reflect the government of heaven, where there is no compulsion, but only eternal love for each soul.
No comments:
Post a Comment