|
|
|
|
21st Century Bioethical Integrity - Robert Weise
In this paper, Robert W. Weise, the Lutheran Foundation of St. Louis Chair of Pastoral Ministry and Life Sciences, discusses media depictions, scientific re-shaping of terms, and political definitions that lead to misunderstandings in the areas of ethics and life sciences.
21st Century Bioethical Integrity: Terminology and Truth-Telling
Robert W. Weise, Professor
Lutheran Foundation of St. Louis Chair of Pastoral Ministry and Life Sciences
Christians need to have a basic understanding of scientific and theological terms so that they can engage in informed conversation and decision making about beginning and end-of-life issues. In a society that deconstructs terms and their meanings so that all things are permissible, but not beneficial or helpful, Christians must continue to be informed on the correct use of terminology. Dr. Nigel M. De S. Cameron argues this point in the following manner:
There is no alternative to expecting responsible citizens to develop a basic familiarity with what’s happening in biology. Our local newspaper carried a report the other day on a high school senior who had just graduated despite the challenges of life in a wheelchair. 'Stem-cell research might cure her problem,' she told the reporter, 'but the government won’t allow it.' Well, those who follow the debate will note at least three basic mistakes in that statement: work on adult stem-cells is hugely promising and is being funded energetically by the federal government; basic work on embryonic stem-cell lines is also being funded; and there is no federal prohibition on privately-funded work that involves destroying embryos to obtain embryonic stem-cells [italics added] . . . Unless citizens (and journalists) can learn to make and appreciate such distinctions, as the biotech agenda gets more sophisticated, democracy will find itself increasingly dislocated and biotech will run out of control.
Maintaining proper distinctions help us to keep terminology and concepts understandable within their context. When distinctions are blurred, a clear picture of the use of a word, its context, and what the word conveys is impossible. The result is deception. Deception leads to misunderstanding, misunderstanding leads to wrong conclusions, and wrong conclusions may lead Christians to compromise their Christian witness. R. Galloy writes: “Put simply, words teach.”
Galloy points the finger of confusion, misrepresentation and deception at the semantics of the media. He says: “They know better than anyone that if you want to change the way people think, just change the words. As verbal engineering has preceded today’s abortion culture, honest vocabulary is vital to restore life’s protection.”
However, the media isn’t totally to blame for creating misleading and incorrect information. Within the bioethical community, on issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, deceptive and misleading information relating to embryology (the study of the developing embryonic human being through its first 8 weeks) is being perpetuated.
For example, embryologists commonly define the word zygote as a one-cell (unicellular) embryo. This zygote is formed by the union of the sperm genetic material and oocyte (egg) genetic material. This process is called fertilization. The one cell embryo or zygote now exists as a genetic unity, that is, 23 chromosomes contributed by the mother’s oocyte (egg) and 23 chromosomes contributed by the father’s sperm cell.
The result of this process is the beginning of the formation and development of a human being. William Larsen states: “This is the beginning of a developing human.” The entire development of a human being in the womb of the mother is a continuum that should not be interrupted. Unfortunately, this appropriate understanding of human development within the womb is being side stepped by scientists, philosophers and theologians.
A recent CTCR document, “Christian Faith and Human Beginnings: Christian Care and Pre-implantation Human Life” defines embryo in the following manner: “A stage of pre-natal mammalian development that (in humans) extends from 2 to 8 weeks after fertilization.” This definition is not in agreement with the correct use of the term as defined by embryologists. Therefore, if it is not an embryo prior to the second week, as embryologists define the term, then what is it? This is an inaccurate representation of the embryological term embryo and casts doubt on the validity of the Missouri Synod’s position that a human life exists at conception/fertilization.
Clarity in the definition of the term embryo is important because in 1986 the American Fertility Society decided to create and adopt, for public policy reasons, the term pre-embryo. The pre-embryo is defined as a fertilized oocyte from day one through day 14. The use of this term erroneously implies that the embryo is not a human life developing. By creating a new category, labeled pre-embryo, the destruction of human life becomes permissible under the guise that embryos are not being destroyed, only pre-embryos. Use of this term also sends a message to the public that this is the current and correct word scientists use to describe the early developing embryo.
In addition, by creating a term such as pre-embryo, it becomes easier to conceive of it as a ‘subhuman’ or ‘nonhuman’ blob of human cellular tissue. The embryo becomes a commodity and means to an end. Pre-embryos do not exist within the discipline of embryology. To wrongly define a scientific term or to create one in its place is deceptive and a clear abuse of correct embryological terminology. The implication is that since the pre-embryo is not a human being, it can be manipulated, experimented with and destroyed for the good of all mankind’s happiness and well being. This has profound implications in the current debate regarding embryonic stem cell research and abortion.
Another example of this is demonstrated by an influential scientist, Steven Teitelbaum of Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. He supports the destruction of human embryos for research. To gain the community’s approval, he says that he is for the “pro-life of the child” ill with diseases that stem cell research might cure.
The twisted use of pro-life phraseology causes the emotive side of our senses to agree, for how could anyone say “No!” to research that ‘might’ result in cures, even if it means the destruction of human embryos? In addition, Teitelbaum gives the public the impression that embryos are not human by calling them “point-size ball of undifferentiated cells”. His use of the phrase “pro-life of the child” is distinctively different than a person who is pro-life and uses the same phrase. A person who is pro-life views life as a sacred gift from God to be cared for and not killed. Teitelbaum places the term ‘pro-life’ within the narrow context of disease. This is deceptive and preys on the emotions and feelings of a society that is driven by a ‘fix me’ therapeutic syndrome. The deconstructing and abuse of the embryological terminology is misleading and deceptive.
Another example of the semantic engineering of terms comes from the retired and influential Senator John Danforth (an Episcopal priest). He said, “I am pro-life. During my entire career I have voted pro-life. I strongly support Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative because it will save lives and it respects the sanctity of life.” Once again, he twists the meaning of the term pro-life for self-justifying reasons. He disregards the distinction between the concepts conveyed by the terms pro-life and pro-choice. Those who are pro-life believe that all life is sacredly given as gift from God to be cared for, cherished and protected from conception through death. Those who are pro-choice claim that they are "for life," but the word life is restricted in what it means and to what it refers.
The exchange of correct for incorrect terminology, i.e. Teitelbaum exchanging human embryonic cells for “point-size ball of undifferentiated cells,” as well as saying one thing, i.e. “I am pro-life,” yet approving the destruction of human embryos, plays on the emotions and ignorance of the public so that they become focused only on results and not relationships. When a well respected senator, a well known scientists or large church body speaks, the public tends to listen. Therefore, all persons in vocations within the public eye who speak with authority must not capitulate to ill-defined and inaccurate terminology. Truth-telling is paramount, especially within the context of being in Christ and a Christ-centered witness.
Therefore, the use of correct terminology when discussing bioethical issues is vital for truth-telling and integrity. The following guidelines may be helpful in discerning the correct or incorrect use of scientific and biotechnological words, phrases and concepts: (1) they must be defined within their context from reputable sources, i.e. embryological terms should be taken from a book on embryology; medical terms from a medical dictionary, etc.; (2) they must be based on scientific fact and not subjective opinion or the vote of a medical board, unless otherwise stated; (3) they must be objective and independent of any personal emotivistic or positivistic rationale by the author; that is, they must be able to stand on their own ground without being used to play on the emotions of individuals; (4) they must be void of the user’s bias; (5) they must not criminalize common sense, i.e. to say that a human embryo is not a human being when all humans exist in that stage of their development criminalizes common sense regarding the process of human development from the process of conception through birth and beyond; (6) listen to those with whom you are dialoguing because people tend hear what they want to hear and nothing more. As Blackburn writes in his book entitled “Truth: A Guide”: “The war of words can often turn into a dialogue of the deaf, and this too is part of its power to arouse outrage and anger.” Active listening, along with integrity tends to eliminate people ‘talking past each other’.
To create inaccurate terms or to give inaccurate definitions of words and phrases leads to deception and untruths that confuses and misleads Christians in their life in Christ. This bears a false witness. The impact of the deconstruction of terminology relating to bioethical issues is profound. It shifts the reality of our humanity in Christ to egoism in a self-directed utilitarian goal wherein the ‘greatest felicity principle’ is truth. Objective truth is turned into the relativistic blurring of distinctions. To the contrary, Christians seek the truth in their struggles with beginning and end-of-life decisions, in the resurrected Christ.
Biblical truth in Christ is foundational to being in Christ and living the life of Christ in this world. The reality of truth and truth-telling is Christ. Apart from the Way, the Truth and the Life, a Christian lives in untruth. Jesus Christ’s life, His suffering, death on the wooden cross and resurrection from the cold, damp tomb for the forgiveness of our sins is the Truth upon which all truths flow as Christians struggle with bioethical dilemmas. Pray that God’s spirit will continue to give you the wisdom of discernment to be the Samaritan in your community that cares for and protects all human life, regardless of location, developmental stage or age. The context of our humanity is in Christ and His resurrection, not in misleading and ill-defined words or phrases that leave us perplexed, dismayed and bemused.
Written By: host
Date Posted: 11/16/2006
Number of Views: 919
Return
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|