Biotechnology raises serious ethical questions

As a talented church pianist calmly went about her duties, it became evident to everyone in the congregation that she was pregnant. Prodded by concern over the unwed young woman's condition and witness, her pastor discussed the situation with her and was surprised to discover that she was serving as a surrogate for her sister.

"Do we celebrate this as a sacrificial act, or should we ask our pianist to temporarily step out of her public place of service?" the pastor asked C. Ben Mitchell, ethicist, and senior fellow at the Institute of Bioethics and Human Dignity.

This question, and others related to the issue of stem cell research and cloning, was one of many examples Mitchell gave in an Oct. 3 workshop on bioethics for staff members at the Florida Baptist Convention building in Jacksonville.

"I'm not a technological determinist. I believe we're making decisions that we will have far reaching results for this and future generations, said Mitchell. The creation of life in a lab, predetermining sex of children and their genetic makeup, pharmacogenomics (the tailoring of drugs to individual genotypes), the repair of damaged brain cells and spinal cords, and the ability to "program out" illnesses by genetically preventing disease-are all current issues calling for serious reflection.

While biotechnology provides opportunity for many life enhancing and/or life extending possibilities, it also challenges people to think about where they are and where they are going. Mitchell pointed out that there is always a lag time between identifying genetic components and developing therapies. He said what happens during that lag time is important.

According to Mitchell, the desire to enhance humans is not a new one. The Eugenic Health Exhibit at the 1920 Topeka, Kansas Free Fair invited individuals to learn about heredity in order to avoid producing "degenerate" offspring. People were also enticed to enter the "Fitter Families" contest where individuals were judged much like cattle in the stock pavilion.

Mitchell shared statistics showing that by 1935, over 20,000 eugenical sterilizations had been performed in the United States, with 30 states having inaugurated a law which allowed them to do this. (Florida never has had a eugenical sterilization law.)

"We have had a history of not treating those who look like us as human," Mitchell continued before sharing facts from a 1993 March of Dimes Poll which revealed that 11 percent of parents would abort a fetus whose genome was predisposed to obesity. Four of five would abort a fetus if it would grow up with a disability, and 43 percent would use genetic engineering simply to enhance their child's appearance.

What society does with the emerging biotechnology, Mitchell suggested, begs for some serious discussion on a number of ethical situations.

"How many of you have talked to your daughters about selling her eggs?" Mitchell asked as he displayed an ad from The Minnesota Daily 2000 which offered a suitable donor $80,000 if she was 5'6" or taller, Caucasian, had a high ACT or SAT score, was a college or graduate student under 30, and had no genetic medical issues. The donor could receive extra compensation if she was a gifted athlete, science/math student or musician.

Mitchell pointed out that the same biological and hard robotic technologies that allow for the collection of eggs allows lives to be improved by such things as pace-makers, artificial hearts, powered artificial limbs, hearing aids, and night vision devices.

"These are just faint hints of future possibilities,' Mitchell noted before suggesting that individuals must ask themselves if they are willing to become slaves of unregulated progress.

"Will we leave all of this, as some scientists have suggested we do, to the scientists? At the crux of this is what it means to be human," he said.

Mitchell said there are generally two ways to categorize being human. One focuses on performance and the individual having an interest in his or her own continuance. The other is based upon ontological status.

Mitchell told the audience he had observed some chimps that supposedly have the mental capacity of a three-year-old. That same week he cradled his sister's newborn baby.

"As I held that little girl, I kept thinking that if I used the first criteria to define being human, my niece would not have as good a chance as the chimps," said Mitchell. "God made man. Being made in the image of God makes us human."

Mitchell said he believes it is important for Christians to pay attention to what is going on with science. "I would argue that the future needs us," he added. "It may need us more now than it ever did. We have to work together to ask the right questions. We dare not retreat from this."

Churches may need to rethink their approach to these issues, as well, Mitchell said. "When is the last time you had a trained scientist or doctor team up to teach a Bible study on what it means to be human?" asked Mitchell. "So many times in our churches we make a call for those who feel God leading them into the ministry or missions to come forward so we can pray for them.

"Do we believe that God can call Christians to be lawyers or pharmacists, doctors or businessmen? If so, why not call those people forward and pray for them?"

Mitchell said it would be wise to take the world view seriously and put it under the Lord's leadership. He also said that Christians need to take the love of God, loving their neighbor and being responsible stewards seriously.

"Actions that are done in community, mean they will have an impact for the community," Mitchell said. "Pay attention. Be involved. Preach in a way to engage the culture in a helpful way. We are currently answering questions no one is asking, and we are not answering questions people are asking. We need to love people. Post modern man wants a better life through biotechnology, but they are hungry for relationships."

 

To read more on the subject of bioethics or to review articles written by C. Ben Mitchell, go to: http://www.cbhd.org.