May

May

Mosher

Mosher

George

George

Ethics

MEILAENDER ON GENETIC ADVANCE AND PRENATAL SCREENING PDF
by William E. May, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow   

william_e_may.jpg

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
 
REVIEW ESSAY OF ROBERT P. GEORGE AND CHRISTOPHER TOLLEFSEN, EMBRYO: A DEFENSE OF HUMAN LIFE: Part II PDF
by William E. May, Ph.D., Senior Fellow   

william_e_may.jpg

In this Part I summarize Chapters 5 though 8 and offer reflections and comments on this very important book.

Read more...
11/30/2009
 
REVIEW ESSAY OF ROBERT P. GEORGE AND CHRISTOPHER TOLLEFSEN, EMBRYO: A DEFENSE OF HUMAN LIFE: Part I PDF
by William E. May, Ph.D., Senior Fellow   

william_e_may.jpg

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
 
THE EMBRYO ADOPTION DEBATE: GORMALLY VS. FINNIS PDF
by William E. May, Ph.D., Senior Fellow   

william_e_may.jpg

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
 
Domestic Adoption: An Approach to the Frozen Embryo Crisis PDF
by Christian Brugger Ph.D   
babies.jpgI 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