
|
|
by William E. May, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow
|
|
Meilaender takes these topics up in chapters 4 and 5, of his Bioethics:
A Primer for Christians. I will devote more space to the first issue.
CHAPTER 4, GENETIC ADVANCE (pp. 38-47)
Summary and Comment
Meilaender’s principal concern in this chapter centers on a new kind of
medical therapy aimed at curing persons suffering from or genetically
disposed to different genetically caused diseases such as Down
Syndrome, sickle-cell anemia, diabetes, and many, many others. After
describing how some of these diseases are caused genetically,
Meilaender then examines the basic forms of genetic therapy: germ cell
therapy and somatic cell therapy. Modifications of germ cells (i.e.,
the cells proper to males and females, sperm and ova respectively, that
when united become a newly conceived human person) are passed on to
future generations whereas modifications of somatic cells (=equals the
cells found in different parts of an individual’s body, e.g., in one’s
brain, pancreas, liver, colon, etc.) are not and affect only the
individual whose somatic cells are modified (39-41). Meilaender
repudiates germ cell therapy, judging its supposed great benefit—the
overcoming of disease not just in one person but in future
generations--to be its “greatest danger…[which] C. S. Lewis memorably
characterized as the ‘abolition of man.’” By this Meilaender and Lewis
mean that the risks of such therapy and the harmful effects it might
have on our children and grandchildren are not known to man but only to
God—and we are not God and ought not “play” God. On the other hand, the
moral questions raised by somatic cell therapy do not call for “the no
that should be spoken to germ cell modification but for caution and a
willingness to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable aims of
therapy” (42-43).
|
|
Read more...
|
|
01/27/2010
|
|
by William E. May, Ph.D., Senior Fellow
|
|
In this Part I summarize Chapters 5 though 8 and offer reflections and comments on this very important book.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
11/30/2009
|
|
by William E. May, Ph.D., Senior Fellow
|
|
This book is so important and rich in content that I will devote two
reports to it. In Part I, I will summarize chapters 1 through 4; in
Part II I will summarize chapter 5 through 8 and offer brief
reflections.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
11/25/2009
|
|
by William E. May, Ph.D., Senior Fellow
|
|
One of the issues most heatedly debated by Catholic bioethicists
addressed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s recent
document on bioethical issues, Dignitas personae, concerned the
morality of prenatally adopting abandoned frozen embryos. Some Catholic
bioethicists had argued that such prenatal adoption is intrinsically
evil and can never rightly be practiced, whereas others had concluded
that it is not and can rightly be practiced.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
10/05/2009
|
|
by Christian Brugger Ph.D
|
I spoke recently at a conference on embryo adoption funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and joint sponsored by two agencies (led largely by devout Protestants) committed to facilitating the adoption of frozen embryos (i.e., the National Embryo Donation Center and Bethany Christian Services). Its purpose was to raise public awareness of the problem of frozen embryos and to point the way to a possible life-saving alternative. Everyone present agreed that something needed to be done about the 500,000 frozen embryos presently stranded in U.S. “concentration cans” (to use the late Jérome Lejeune’s poignant term). Most agreed that the embryo has a unique moral status. Some thought the status was that of a human person. And a small minority (myself included) thought the problem stemmed in the first place from our societal toleration of IVF. Most present were professionals involved in some way with embryo adoption or interested in getting involved (physicians, nurses, lawyers, academics) along with several couples who either have adopted and gestated embryos or put their embryos up for adoption.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
06/05/2008
|
|
|
|