Science in Christian Perspective
An Ethical Evaluation of Biogenetic Engineering
BERNARD RAMM
Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
From: JASA 26 (December 1974): 137-143.
The Ramm Defect
In his article on the "Prenatal Diagnosis of Genetic
Diseases" Dr. Friedmann1
tells us that there are 1600 diseases traceable to genetic defects. May I add
one more. It is the Ramm defect. It is a defect which prevents a
person from saying
"no" to a request beyond his education, experience and
competence.
Some unknown biologist describes it (by anticipation) as follows,
Oh chromosomes, my chromosomes,
Flow sad is my condition!
My grandsire's gift for writing well
Has gone to some
lost polar cell
And so I Write this doggerel,
I cannot do much better.2
If I knew when I was asked to discuss this issue what I know now, I would never
have accepted the request. The more I read the more impossible seems the task.
Many times I wanted to send in a letter of resignation but I was restrained by
Christian charity. I knew that I would be hanging the weight of the dread anchor on some other dear
Christian's neck.
Purpose: To Propose Ethical Guidelines
My purpose was to read the literature on the subject, to attempt to
sort out the
ethical issues, and to propose some guidelines of an ethical nature
in the matters
of genetic engineering - the latest of the scientific explosions.
I make no pretense of being a quasi-doctor or quasi-lawyer. The
technical details,
statistics and mathematics of the subject can be learned from the
informed literature
on the subject. My specialization in this issue is in ethics. I have
never delivered
a baby. I have never seen genetic materials through a microscope. I have never
tried a case at law. My practice of surgery has been limited to
extracting slivers
from the hands and feet of my children.
When I read the genetic materials, I had one aim in mind: what were the ethical
implications of what was being said? When I read an article, I would ask myself; "What
are the writer's
ethical presuppositions?" "What criteria of an ethical bearing is he
using to sort out the right from the wrong?" "What ethical imperative
dictates his conclusions if he makes such conclusions?" It is this sort of
specialized reading of the literature that gives me the confidence to
write this
paper.
The most difficult part of my assignment was that the materials on
genetic engineering
were so heavily
loaded with factual material, and so little with ethical issues.3
Perhaps ethical
opinions about some specific procedure were expressed but we are far
more interested
in broader ethical theorizing. For the most part it was left for me to do the
ethical diagnosing or interpreting. This involves risk and I simply had to take
the risk. There is also the dilemma of bibliographical materials. Time magazine
reported in a recent issue in its essay
on man that in a given year 25,000 books on science were published
and 1,000,000 articles.4
A Basic Cultural Shift Concerning Genetic Defects
The first major fact that I encountered as I started reading the materials is
that a major cultural shift has taken place in our society in the
past century.
In my reading of the sermons of the nineteenth century I found that the general
prevailing opinion about defective children was that God had sent
them to us that
we might learn the lessons of grace (Calvin had said earlier that God sent us
idiots from time to time that we might thank him for our reason.) The care, the
labor, the money and the love given to a defective child were to teach us how
God loves poor, needy sinners. Our care of defectives, whose whole
existence depended
on our sacrificial care, would enable us to grasp with some depth the meaning
of divine grace for helpless and guilty sinners.
This kind of mentality has not ceased to exist. A very lucid illustration of it
can be found in Dale Evans Rogers' book, Angel Unawares.,5 In this
book she relates
how she, her husband, and her other children learned depths of compassion and
love far beyond them if they had not eared for a defective child.
In the mid-twentieth century married couples have come to look at
defective children
as a heavy burden. They are apprehensive of the implication that
there was "insanity
in the family." But even more. The care of such a child
interferes with their
social life as well as their vacations. Besides the special hours of care and
energy spent, there could also be hundreds of dollars of medical
hills per month.
They also read of the damage that a defective child could have psychologically
on the other children of the family. Hence a defective child is no
longer looked
upon as a lesson through which we learn of God's mercy and patience
with sinners,
but as a terrible burden on one's time, a severe limitation of one's
social life,
and a heavy strain on the family's financial resources.
The proof of this transition in mentality is substantiated in genetic
counseling.6
One of the most significant things to inform parents who have had a defective
child is the statistical possibility of having a second such child. The figures
vary with the nature of the disease so they may run from 1 out of 4, to 1 out
of 400. Surprisingly the most important factor in the minds of
couples with regard
to having another child is not the statistical possibilities but the sheer bother of having a defective
child. Stated
another way this means that the prime concern of the couple being counseled is
the nuisance potential of another defective child.
In the mid-twentieth century married couples have come to look at defective children as a heavy burden.
Why Ethical Guidelines are Difficult to Formulate
Most of the definitive original statements about medical ethics have been made
by Roman Catholic moralists prior to the time of our current detailed medical
information. A moral rule without adequate factual basis can he a very mistaken
one.
Our first task is to unburden ourselves from decisions made in
the past without
adequate medical knowledge.
General moral virtues such as wholeness, love, "the good,"
or redemption
are difficult to translate into the specifics of medical ethics. Two Christians
dedicated to the same ethical virtue may arrive at opposite conclusions.
It sounds as if this next observation contradicts the previous one
but in reality
it does not. Medical ethics is a special case of ethics. Ethics in turn emerge
out of one's total outlook on life. Hence to have a system of ethics one needs
first a philosophy; from this philosophy one proceeds to construct his ethics;
and from ethics in general one goes on to medical ethics and finally to genetic
engineering. We have been asked to fill out a questionnaire (Journal ASA, June
1974) with several specific items. The list of questions gave me the impression
that the Christian was to attempt to find the Christian solution for
each question
as he worked his way through the questionnaire. My point is that a
really comprehensive
Christian view of life and reality is required before one is able to answer the
particular questions.
The speed of the acquisition of new knowledge poses a very difficult task for
any person working in the field of ethics. Scientific knowledge is supposed to
double every five years. On the other hand, moral principles and
systems of values
take decades and centuries to pound out. A new breakthrough in science may come
overnight. A moral evaluation ot the implications of the breakthrough may take
a century to mature. With the principle advances in genetic engineering hardly
a decade old, the ethicist simply has not had the time to think
through all their
implications.
Our American society is becoming increasingly pluralistic. The more pluralistic
a society becomes, the smaller becomes the common ground to which appeal can be
made for ethical decisions. This "paralysis of pluralism" spills over
into medical and biological ethics and makes it difficult to arrive at common
ethical interpretations.
Our society has no methodology for resolving the very difficult nest of ethical
problems our technological explosion has produced. This technological explosion
is felt the strongest in the embarrassing position into which it has
placed medical
ethics. Let us look at the ways this problem has been attacked.
(a) Leroy Augenstein reports in Come Let Us Play God7 that be would present a typical problem in medical ethics to a
congregation.
Then slips would be passed out and a vote taken. It was not unusual to get back
80% of the slips blank! Apparently we cannot solve our medical ethical problems
by appealing to the common consent of Christian conscience. Such problems are
too bewildering for the lay mind to interpret.
(b) Suppose that we appeal to Christian theologians who have
specialized in medical
ethics. Unfortunately there is no consensus here. Paul Ramsey is very cautious
and conservative; Joseph Fletcher is very pragmatic and utilitarian;
and Gabriel
Fackre is open-ended and wide-eyed in his medical ethics.
(c) We may turn in another direction. Perhaps we could appeal to a
representative
committee from the community, as if such a carefully chosen committee
would represent
the common moral consciousness of the
community. This was (done by the Swedish Hospital in
Seattle and is known in the literature as "the Seattle experiment."
The problem in this situation has already been anticipated. In our pluralistic
society we have no common value system. How, then, can we determine who is the
most valuable man for a community among a list of candidates for a
dialysis machine?
Is it the pharmacist who is the important link between the doctor and
the patient
with our healing medicines? Or is it the social worker working on healing the
ills of the community? Here again we encounter failure or at least serious difficulty
in practice.
(d) Then some one approaches us from our blind side: the lawyer.
Perhaps it will
not he the scientist, nor the philosophers, nor the theologians, nor
the priests
who will write our texthook on medical ethics, but the lawyers.
As seen in Michael Hamilton's hook, The New Genetics and the Future
of Man,8 and
in Should Doctors Play God,9 edited by Claude Frazier and Morris
Fishhem, the
lawyers have already entered the discussion. The suggestion now comes that the
new medical ethics will be worked out in hard eases at law.
Germain Grisez has written the most thorough book
on ethics and abortion in recent years,10 (Abortion:
The Myths, the Realities and the Arguments). He has made the most
thorough investigation
of the decisions of courts, especially about the legal status of the fetus. He
has found that the general trend of the law is to treat the fetus as
a legal person
and not merely a piece of tissue in the mother. My point here is not to settle
anything about abortion, but to show how large a role the courts play
in settling
matters of medical ethics.
A new breakthrough in science may come overnight. A moral evaluation of the implications of the breakthrough may take a century to mature.
Recently we have had the Supreme Court itself making a decision about abortion.
It did not make a mere general ruling shout abortion, but set out the
legal status
of the fetus (by implication) during the three periods of pregnancy.11 The
point again is not to comment on abortion, but to comment on how medical ethics
is being settled by courts, and not by theologians, philosophers, rabbis,
priests, or doctors.
The Seriousness of Ethical Issues
Why has such an enormous literature mushroomed up around genetics and ethics?
How much is at stake?
1. The public and the academic worlds respond more strongly toward developments
in the life sciences because they eventually may be applicable to man, whereas
there are not the same kinds of existential implication in the more impersonal
sciences. The one exception is ecology; here physics and chemistry are part of
man's concern because their use in industry is part of the infection
of the planet
upon which he must live.
2. In genetic engineering the biologist and doctor are working with
the building
blocks of life itself. Granted the division between our genetic cells and our
somatic cells is not as sharp as once thought, the distinction still remains in
a broad sense. Hence to experiment with genetic cells is to experiment with our
future in a way that is not done in working with somatic cells.
3. There is the factor of irreversibility. One of the reasons
scientists deplore
the extinction of a species is that with its extinction goes the loss
of its genetic
materials. It brings us to the end of a line. By the very nature of
genetic materials
we can go down a street so far that we cannot turn around and come back.
4. Doctors cars now keep alive 90% of babies born with genetic
defects. This success
in lifesaving leads to what is called the contamination of our
genetic pool. Just
as some have spoken of the heat-death of our world, others now
project the genetic
death of the human race through such genetic contamination.
5. There are the "weirdo" speculations about genetic
warfare (drop virus
dust over the enemy and so weaken him genetically that he has no will
or capability
to fight), cloning soldiers, geniuses or athletes (which will affect
the Olympic
Games!) or modifying men so that we can have legless astronauts, etc.
6. We should do all we can to eliminate as many as possible of the
approximately
1600 genetic oriented diseases. By amniocentesis we can detect at
this point (according
to Dr. Friedmann) about forty genetic
diseases; we must seriously face what this means for the current
practice of medicine.
7. Genetic counseling is one of our newer specialties. Fewer defective children
will be born the more expert genetic counselors we have. If I
interpret the nature
of sickle cell anemia correctly it would be eliminated by expert
genetic counseling
with no recourse to abortion.
Alternative Ethical Systems
The literature soon made apparent to me that writers in the fields of genetics
and medicine were making ethical decisions based on a larger ethical
system. For
me, then, the issue was to attempt to locate and define these larger
ethical systems.
The systems that I present are to be seen more as programs or policies rather
than as a set of tight ethical rules. To some measure they overlap
and for purposes
of communication I have given them labels. Some scholars consider a
label a libel,
but I felt for the purposes of clarity I would run the risk of this
criticism.
Theory 1: Person-centered medical ethics. Each patient is a person before he is
a patient and when he becomes a patient he is still first a person.
He is a unique
center of values and must be so respected. If he becomes only another
case, another
bed or the unwitting subject of experimental medicine his dignity as a person
has been violated. All biological and experimental and genetic work
must he done
within this framework. (Ramsey. Kass)12
There are five reasons why person-centered ethicists think the way
they do. These
five reasons are also criticisms of the utilitarian view which we
review next.
1. They are apprehensive of the amount of unannounced medical experimentation
that is taking place today in medical practice. This raises the
problem of consent,
which is one of the stickiest in medical ethics.13
2. They are still apprehensive of the terrible abuse of medical experimentation
by the Nazis - a paradigm of what may happen whenever the state makes the rules
in medical ethics.
Recently it was suggested that each baby be tatooed with his social
security number
in his arm pit upon birth as his permanent identification. The arm
pit was chosen,
as in all kinds of accidents that part of the human body was most
likely to survive
destruction. The protest of the Jewish doctors present was immediate
and forceful,
for still strong in their minds was the Nazi practice of branding people with
numbers on their arms.
3. They are very apprehensive of the recency of the major advances in genetic
engineering most from the 1960's-and therefore the tentative character
of our knowledge.
We are in no position as yet to have any sort of policy or program in genetic
engineering for the masses.
4. They are very apprehensive of a certain amount of double-talk in
the literature.
The word "therapy" is used many times when it is not therapy at all.
To eliminate a person from existence is not therapy! For example, an abortion,
no matter how well it may be justified, is not therapy. The notion here is that
certain practices may not he contested if called "therapy," but might
be if more accurately labeled as "feticide."
5. The theological wing of this school believes strongly that Genesis 1-2 set
out the pattern in which our true humanity is discovered and realized. It is in the male-female,
husband-wife,
and parent-child relationships in which we realize our humanity. Our humanity is
destroyed and not established in the world of test tube babies, plastic wombs,
frozen embryos and computerized ovum and sperm banks.
In our pluralistic society we have no common value system. How can we determine who is the most valuable man for the community among a list of candidates for a dialysis machine?
Theory II: Utilitarian medical ethics. Utilitarian is not used here
in a pejorative
sense. Rather, it is the best description of the general policies governmental
agencies follow in matters of public health. The health of a large population
cannot rest upon personal choices. We do things on the principle of
the best possible
good for the most number of people. Rules of immunization, sanitation, purity
of food, and control of drugs are all city, state or national policies. This is
the only way we can live together in safety and freedom from plagues
and epidemics.
Therefore in that we are all pan of the one human genetic pool such matters of
medical decision should eventually he made on a utilitarian basis as they are
with infectious diseases.
I register this as a dominant mood in the literature although I cite no names.
However it was the implication of numerous articles and hooks,
although the authors
might be startled to know that in essence they were arguing for a utilitarian
ethic.
For example, one segment of Jewish descent suffer a high incidence of Tay-Sachs
disease. Deterioration and death occur within four years in infants
so affected.
As far as I could ascertain in my reading, all Ashkenazy Jews wish
that they were
free from this disease; this is a utilitarian judgment.
Or all blacks could wish that sickle cell anemia could he eliminated
from blacks
in America. In fact some extremists have charged the practice of
medicine by white
doctors as a form of racial genocide in their ignoring of sickle cell
anemia among
blacks. The black desire for the elimination of this disease among all blacks
is a utilitarian judgment.
The logic follows, then, that if 1600 of our diseases are of a genetic origin,
there should be some sort of law that helps to reduce that number. Further, the
more extreme of these diseases of genetic origin cause such suffering, demand
so much money and care, and require so much personnel for maintenance of life,
that some sort of across-the-board law should exist for the decrease
and at best
elimination of these severe diseases. We are all together in the human genetic
pool. Hence only a ultilitarian ethic is adequate to cope with the
problems.
Already Denmark has adopted the utilitarian ethic: no couple in Denmark with a
serious genetic defect in their heritage may marry without sterilization. The
beginning of a genetic, utilitarian ethic is found in the U.S.A. in states like
Massachusetts and New York which have a mandatory sickle cell anemia test for
children entering their school system .14
There are two opposing points that should be made with respect to a utilitarian
ethic. First, does the very nature of genetic diseases (being involved in the
reproductive process) keep the ethics of practice of our genetic
knowledge forever
in the personal dimension? To many the obvious answer is
"yes." Second,
if genetic diseases do affect the total genetic pool, and if way down the line
we may even dream of the genetic death of man, does not this demand
that to some
measure our ethics about genetics be utilitarian? Those who believe that as we
eliminate infectious diseases and other diseases that kill especially children,
we also materially increase the incidence of genetically originated diseases,
will say "yes."
Theory III: Utopian or Futurologist medical ethics. Given enough time with the
growth of our knowledge of genetics we may eliminate most if not all of man's
genetically caused diseases. Furthermore, we may use this knowledge
for the continuous
perfection or use of the human race. (Gabriel Fackre, A. J. Muller,
R. L. Sinsheimer).
A. J. Muller has written in most technical detail of the continuous
contamination
of our gene pool. Although he does not have the dreams that Fackre
does, he does
believe something remedial must be done to preserve the relative purity of our
genetic pool.15
In glowing terms Sinsheimer projects a genetic utopian future:
We now glimpse another mote-the chance to ease the internal strains
and heal the
internal flaws directly-to carry on and consciously to perfect, far beyond our
present vision, this remarkable product of two billion years of evolution. We
are, it is true, very young for this task-young in skills, young in wisdom-hut
also fortunately young in heart.l6
Gabriel Fackre has written many articles on man's genetic future, characterized
by "futurology." This is a new mood in theology called neo-optimism
or even neopostmillennialism. According to Fackre, God has turned the universe
over to man to subdue it. This means to Fackre not only to clean up
crime, poverty
and injustices, but to do miracles with our new genetic knowledge. He operates
with the categories of liberation and shalom, Among the many things
meant by liberation
is liberation from all genetic defects. By shalom (the Hebrew word for peace)
he means wholeness, richness, and the healing of defects. If man is guided by
shalom in his genetic engineering, he will not do the terrible things the Nazis
did. Fackre has written much more on futurology, science and genetics
but we cannot
give his views more space.
Both Christian and non-Christian are slowly coming to the conviction that the
supreme norm in ethics is the quality of life and not the sheer fact
of life.
Utopian ideals indicate that genetic engineering is concerned not
only with clearing
up problems of health and disease, but also with those speculative and positive
things it might do. We may gradually increase the "intelligence
quotient"
of the entire population; we may breed a man with more moral and artistic sensitivities; we may clone geniuses
by the dozens and accelerate science, or art, or whatever we wish. It
has already
been prophesied that the Olympic Games twenty years from now will
reflect genetic
engineering to produce better athletes. Cloning may also solve the problem of
tissue rejection in transplants. Perhaps we shall solve some of our
pressing problems
in the area of aging. The greatest achievement of all was suggested
by a theologian,
no less, who said that we should locate the gene which carries original sin and
knock it out with a laser beam!
Fackre faces the issue raised by Ramsey about Genesis 1-2 and the
meaning of life.
He thinks there are many ways of creating meaningful human relationships other
than the Genesis pattern. Therefore the new world of genetic engineering does
not disturb him at this point. We might add that the Russians and
Chinese apparently
consider children the ward of the state and have set up massive day
care centers
with minimum contact of mother and child. In time we will know if
such a disturbance of the traditional family pattern is harmful or not.
Theory IV: The humanitarian ethics of scientists. It is unfair to pick out the
biologists and doctors and make them special targets for discussions
about ethics.
They are scientists among scientists. They have their own internal control and
standards. They do not torture animals. If pain is involved in any experiment
it is treated as humanely as possible. If we trust physicists,
chemists, and geologists,
why not trust biologists and doctors? Their aim is the good of man and we may
then trust them in their laboratory work and not mark them out for subjects of
ethical harangues) 17
The argument is not difficult to construe. Scientists make progress only as all
options are open to them. Geneticists and doctors need this breathing room too.
If society puts restrictions upon them in the name of humanity they
may be doing
a very inhumane thing inadvertently. A certain experiment may outrage
somebody's
sensibilities, but it may lead to a cure for schizophrenia. What may appear to
some person as a barbarous treatment of a colony of rats may lead to the cure
of cancer.
If there are 1600 diseases of a genetic origin, the genetic engineer should be
encouraged in every way and not hemmed in by law or censorship.
There is another assumption which goes with this theory. In fact, the
assumption
may be the theory itself. If scientists achieve the cure of a disease
it is then
assumed that the cure is moral. If the cure is moral, then the means
of achieving
the cure is moral.
It could he argued that this is the history of medicine. We no longer consider
the dissection of a body as desecration of the human body. When a
surgeon operates
on us we want him to know our interior geography very expertly. We no
longer consider
anaesthesia an attempts to avoid the pain from our "curse unto
death".
Millions of surgeries performed every year to heal bodies and save lives would
be impossible without it.
In short, if the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then an edible pudding
is an ethical pudding. This comes out clearly in the study of Roman
Catholic medical
ethics. The Roman Catholic laymen are steadily drifting towards a
medical ethics
which virtually says
that what cures or helps is moral, rather than taking their guidance from Roman
Catholic moralists. About 100% of the girls brought up with strict
Roman Catholic
training will (prior to the time of their marriage) consider birth control to
be wrong. After they have had five or more children, 60% and perhaps more will
accept it as moral.
Applied to genetic engineering, this approach means that as geneticists rid us
of our genetic diseases or greatly reduce their effects, we will consider their
work as ethical. Reinforcing this is the concept that the fundamental
consideration
in medical ethics should be the quality of life and not the mere existence of
life.
Concluding Observations
1. I think that, of the four options mentioned, the first is the most
viable for
most Christians. At least they are more comfortable with it. It is a
general conviction
that the more morally sensitive portion of our population
(theologians, priests,
rabbis, ministers, humanitarians, scientists) should have a larger
say in medical
ethics than lawyers and politicians (speaking of them as a class and
not as persons).
2. I think that the medieval moralists were generally right in
arguing that ethical
decisions must grow out of a total worldview. Their program was
right; their error
was a lack of knowledge and perhaps some of the additional stuff that must go
into such a total world view. Unfortunately Christians suffer from pluralism as
much as society. Hence there is no great evangelical Christian synthesis today.
This is an embarrassment for the contemporary evangelical, for he is
as tormented
about medical ethics as others who investigate the subject.
3. I think that both Christian and non-Christian are slowly coming to
the conviction
that the supreme norm in ethics is the quality of life and not the sheer fact
of life.
This issue comes out critically in the unnecessary prolongation of life. It is
more and more felt that the notion that the patient is to he kept alive at all
costs is less and less capable of defense.
It also comes to the surface over the question: "When does human
life begin?"
Supposing we consider that to be a false question or a misguided
question. There
is no agreement on the issue. For the first ten days or two weeks of pregnancy
there is no way of knowing whether the woman actually has a fetus or a growth.
But if we ask: "What is human life intended to he?" perhaps
we can get
around this highly emotional question. If the goal of life is a
mature, rational
integrated adult, then we may say that any human life that is way off
course and
can never reach that goal can never fulfill what it means to be a complete human
person. When medical ethics becomes passionately concerned with what is headed
way off target and deciding if such a monstrous or defective fetus
ought to survive,
then the endless question, which to this point has defied all
moralists and biologists,
"When does human life begin," is avoided.
Although the ethical content of the material on genetic engineering
stresses the
moral and humanitarian goals of such engineering as well as physical wellbeing,
the emphasis comes down hard on the latter. Perhaps with scientists doing all
the experimental work in this area, this emphasis on man's physical
well-being
is inevitable.
However it has been the contention of the Christian Church that
people who suffer
from illness, disease, and bodily defects may nonetheless reach
spiritual maturity
if not sainthood. Disease itself need not be seen as necessarily
damaging spiritual self-fulfillment.
The greatest Christian drama of the twentieth century is judged to be T. S. Eliot's
The Cocktail Party.
It is a study of modern man's discontent, unhappiness and undiagnosed sense of
emptiness. The solution to this spiritual disease is found by the
heroine Celia.
Celia finds herself and beatific happiness by the hard route of
self-denial, cross-bearing,
identification with the suffering of Christ and finally martyrdom. One's true
humanity, identity and sense of fulfilment in life are found by the
way of suffering
and self-renunciation. Modern medicine unintentionally creates the
illusion that
a perfect genetic heritage and a healthy body are the achievement of
the fulfillment
of our humanity. T. S. Eliot's The Cocktail Party is a brilliant reminder that
man treads not only a pathway of physical evolution, growth and improvement hut
he also treads a spiritual pathway which is governed by far different
rules than
the former.
Modern medicine unintentionally creates the illusion that a perfect genetic heritage and a healthy body are the achievement of the fulfillment of our humanity.
This intense concern with the physical side of man in which modern
medical science
(and again I believe unintentional) gives the impression that good health and
the realization of our humanity are identical, is given a satirical commentary
in Paul Ramsey's rephrasing of the twenty third Psalm. Ramsey wants
to "blow
the whistle" on those moderns who are so occupied with the
problems of man's
physical well-being as achieved through science as to he completely dense about
man's spiritual journey. Hence this paraphrase will be understood only if the
satirical element in it is grasped.
The Lord is my Genetics Counselor, I shall not want for risks.
He maketh me to lie down in genealogies; he nondirects inc beside karyotypes.
He restoreth my inborn errors; he leads me in the paths of reproduction for my
name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of amniocentesis or under the shadow of
fetoscopy, I will fear no evils for thou, the Greatest Good of the
Greatest Number,
art with me; thy chromosome counts and thy enzyme assays they comfort me.
Thou preparest multi phasie screening before me in the presence of my
illnesses;
thou anointest my head with check-ups; my profile runneth over.
Surely mutations and heterozygosity shall follow me all the days of
my life; and
I shall dwell in the house of computerized biomedical information forecer.18
FOOTNOTES
1Theodore Friednsann, "Prenatal Diagnosis of Genetic
Disease," Scientific American, 225:3451, November 1971
2George B. O'Tnnle, The Case Against Evolution (New York: The
Macmillan Company,
1925), p. 42.
3For example McClearn has written a very thorough survey on the whole territory
of genetics but not a line on the ethical implications of genetics.
"Genetic
Influences on Behavior Development." Paul H. Mussen, editor, Conaichael's
Manual of Child Psychology, Vol. I. Third edition (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1970), pp. 39-76).
4Time, 101:84, April 23, 1973.
5Westsvood: Revell, 1953.
6 V. Elving Anderson, "Genetic Control and Human Values"
(Minneapolis:
Dight Institute of Genetics, The University of Minnesota, unpublished
paper, October
20-21, 1972)
7New York: Harper and Rosy, 1969.
8Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmaus, 1972,
9Nashville: Broadman Press, 1971.
10R. J'. Gerber, "Abortion: Parameters for Decision," Ethics,
82:137-154, January 1972.
11Cf, James Dc Burst, " 'A New Constitutional Right,' The
Supreme Court and
Abortion," The Reformed journal, 23:7-10, April 1973.
12Paul Ramsey is the most articulate developer of this viewpoint. Cf. his The
Patient as Person (New Haven: Yale Press, 1970) and his opinions on
cloning, etc.
in Fabricated Man (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970)
13Cf Frazier and Fishbein, ibid., pp. 83-98.
14Oue of the developments of this that is bothering the ethicist is
that insurance
companies have been able to get hold of these tests and feed them
into their computer
system. Hence the rates of patients with sickle cell anemia runs much higher.
This is just more of the continuous erosion of the rights of privacy
in our American
democracy.
15A. J. Muller has written many articles on the subject. His article
which stands
as a kind of summary of all his articles is "Should We Weaken or
Strengthen
our Genetic Heritage?" Daedalus, 90:432-450, Summer 1961.
16Robert L. Siusheinser, "The Prospect for Designed Genetic Change,"
American Scientist, 57:134-143, 1969, p. 141, One of the finest
summaries of the
issues of this paper will be found to be that of R. J. Berry, "Genetic
Engineering," Christian Graduate, 26:3-8, March 1973. In it he cites Sir
Maefarlane Bruuett who strongly asserts that the possibility of knocking out a
defective gene and inserting a healthy one is so remote that it will
perhaps not
happen "to the last syllable of recorded time." p. 5.
Furthermore the conference at San Diego indicated how tentative amniocentesis
is at the present time. Some criminals have been found to have the XYY pattern
at the sex chromosome which made them anti-social, hence criminal.
But other men
with the same XYY pattern are normal in their social relationships.
In other eases
a parent will have the same chromosome defect as the defective child
yet the parent
will be a normal person.
17This attitude is clearly stated in Gerald Leach, The Biocrats: Ethics and the
New Medicine (New York: McGraw Hill, 1970), p. 14ff.
18Cited in the JAMA, March 13, 1972 and reproduced in Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists,
p. 16, December 1972, Vol. 27.
As the reader will note my article is far more general than the specific topic
of amniocentesis. The discussion at San Diego centered more on the
issues amniocentesis
raised
than the general subject of medical ethics. Amniocentesis enables the doctor to
know about the fourteenth week of pregnancy if the fetus is bearing one of the
forty genetic defects which can he so detected at this time all of
which may have
serious effects upon the neurological system of the baby svhen born.
Furthermore,
at our present state of knowledge, predictability in amniocentesis is very low,
i.e., we cannot always assume with certainty that a given chromosome
pattern means
that the child will actually he horn with these defects. But granted
all of that,
the central ethical issue is whether such prenatal knowledge of
serious physical
detects is a new and justifiable basis for abortion. There is no
meaning to doing
amniocentesis unless it is already assumed that abortion of defective fetuses
is morally justifiable.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The following bibliography is composed of entrees which
do not appear in the footnotes.
I. BOOKS
Bosenfield, Albert, The Second Genesis: The Coming Control of Life. New York:
Prentice-Hall, 1972.
Roslausky, John D., editor, Genetics and the Future of Man. New York:
Appleton-CenturyCrofts,
1966.
Smith, Harmon L., Ethics and the New Medicine. New York: Abingdon, 1970.
Taylor, Cordon Rattray, The Biological Time Bomb. New York: New
American Library,
1969.
Young, David P., A New World in the Morning: The Biophysical Revolution, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1972.
II. PERIODICALS, ESSAYS.
Faekre, Gabriel, "Faith and the Science-Man Questions,"
Christianity and Crisis, 27:315-318, January 8, 1968.
______"Redesigning Life: "Scenarios and Guidelines." Claude A. Frazier
and Morris Fishbeiu, editors, Should Doctors Play God? Nashville:
Broadman Press,
1971. Pp. 99-115.
_______"Biomedical Research," Theology Today, 27: 409-421, January 1971.
Huisingh, Donald, "Should Man Control His Genetic Future?" Zygon, 4:188-199, June 1969.
_______Lappe, Mare, "Moral Obligations and Genetic Control,"
Theological Studies,
33:411-427, September 1972.
"How Much Do We Want To Know About The Unborn," The Hastings Center
Report, 3:8-9, February 1973 [Lappe is extremely critical of
amniocentesis].
Lederberg, Joshua, "Experimental Genetics and Human Evolution," American
Naturalist, 100:519-531.
Lincoln, C. Eric, "Why I Reversed my Stand on Laissez-Faire Abortion,"
The Christian Century, 90:477-479, April 25, 1973.
Nelson, Robert J., "What Does Theology Say About Abortion?"
Christian Century, 90:124-128, January 31, 1973.
Rebinowiteh, Eugene, et. al., "Can Man Control His Biological
Evolution?" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 27:12-28,
December 1972.
Robin, Richard, "Recent Developments in Genetics,"
Theological Studies,
33:401-410, September 1972.
Smith, John Maynard, "Eugenics and Utopia," Daedalus, 94:
487-505, Spring
1965.
Walters, Leroy, "Technological Assessment and Genetics," Theological
Studies, 33:666-683, December 1972.