What role, if any, should Theological Reflection play in the bioethics of Engineering Human Beings?
Introduction
Bioethics is defined by four principles, which are the principle of justice, principle of respect for autonomy, the principle of the nonmaleficence, and the principle of the beneficence (Agar, 2010). Either minor or major the principles of ethics confront the healthcare organizations with the provision of human beings with diverse healthcare in a multicultural and pluralistic society. When the society is faced with the need of diversity, the question that normally remains not answered is the moral action guides that can be implemented to solve the confusion and conflict about what should have been done (Beauchamp, 2013). Furthermore, the guidelines that relate to theological reflection should be broadly affected by the non-religious and religious and for the people that come from different cultural backgrounds. For that reason, theological reflection should play an important role in the bioethics of engineering human beings because many variables are present in the context relating to clinical cases. Additionally, there are ethical principles that can be used in many situations, and they are not absolute due to the fact they serve as powerful actions guides in the bioethics of human engineering.
Theological Reflection and the bioethics of Human Engineering
The debate about the bioethics of human engineering and theological reflection is usually based on a society that is built, with the aim of selecting people to fill certain roles. The environment is also manipulated to the behavior and social mobility of the general population. Therefore, it is upon the members of the society to take heart as they are facing the prospect of a new and powerful method of controlling the nature of the general human population. The controversy surrounding gene editing was reminiscent over the recombinant DNA in the 1970s (Kirkland, 2008). This was the period when scientists first learned how to cut and paste different genetic codes. Precision gene editing was also observed to be efficient, cheap, and easy to use. It is easy to edit several genes at once while making additional changes on the DNA sequence. However, the bioethics of human engineering still requires some room for improvements. There is also the need for exploring natural component that can help with bacterial defense against any viral infection.
Moreover, clinicians and researchers have come to an agreement that the development of designer babies is unethical and should be unspoken of — nonetheless, there many who strongly support that human engineering can be used in correcting disease-causing mutation in embryos. Therefore, regulation of the human engineering based on the theological reflection will most likely remain between the middle, either ethical or unethical. Furthermore, societies are the ones who are responsible for the development of the guidelines and rules controlling the use of genetic engineering (Qureshi " Padela, 2016). Therefore, it is clear that the well-being of the patients and research subjects should be protected before any experimental treatment is carried out. However, the question about how can an individual be overprotected remains unanswered. Meaning that the society cannot tell if bioethics represent too much of a good thing. In some cases, the answer might be true because some doctors happened to uphold the highest ethical standards.
Concerning arguments based on human nature, biology as a subject teaches the sense that comes with natural evolution. Every organism, including human beings, change with time due to natural selection, genetic drift, and mutation. The cultural and social environment also establishes societal perspectives about humanity. When it comes to theological reflection, people were formed by the triune God and shaped in the image of God. This was the beginning of human dignity, and people are expected to live according to God's standards. In other words, human beings are individuals whom their dignity should not be infringed.
Bioethics was borrowed from the cultural context of Christianity, and it is easy to notice the close relationship that exists between Christian principles and medical ethics. However, theological bioethics is not supported by worldly bioethics due to its characteristics of social-conservative orientation. In the beginning, Christians were fighting for human and political rights, and they have been raising awareness of human and religious values in society (Pfleiderery et al., 2010). For instance, theologians from the Catholic Church were perceived to be talking about the common good because the traditional doctrine of the Catholic talks about the demand of justice in the area of health insurance and integrated life. It was in this context that Catholics initiated the issue about the right of the fetus and embryo to live.
Furthermore, Christian traditions and the Bible states that the principal of any human activity should always be about life and the man. Therefore, the man is not any being but the human being that God created on its image. Even though human being was created to be dependent and have limited options, a human being has his (her) immense dignity. According to the Bible, man is viewed as a creative, active, and responsible creature (Mathieu, 2016). The man is not the actual master of himself, or the world life but a responsible manager of what God created. For that reason, God creates the man and world and put the man in charge. However, it is becoming exciting that God did not provide the man with any program, but freedom and reasons for discovering what the laws of the life entail. In simple terms, man is the incorporated part of nature. The tradition of Christianity has introduced a specific concept into bioethics. The concept is known as love, which is the foundation of moral Christian life. It is through the concept of love that Christians tend to proclaim Christ. Furthermore, God was the first one to love human beings freely and therefore it is the responsibility of people to love one another. According to Christians, Jesus is the real measure and foundation of love.
The deeds of love should be the elements that preoccupy Christians’ lives. They should learn how to recognize one another and love should be taken as a form that controls all Christian virtues. Apart from love, there is a great Christian tradition concept known as justice. It is the notion that relates to the discussion about equitable distribution in the healthcare sector. For that reason, human health should be the global right of every individual. The concept of Christian justice emphasizes that human beings are equal whether they are poor or rich (Galván, 2012). Therefore, they have equal rights in accessing the method of treatment. Christianity also highlights that moral and religious values are not controlled by any political orientation whether left or right. Moreover, poverty should be used as a common field of action for both liberals and conservatives.
The western Christianity has also developed a theological reflection that differentiates the value of human life from the anthropological concept. It elaborates the relationship that exists between sexuality and personal life within the context if axiological science. The theological reflection also entails technical science and embryo-political issues because they also include the possible manipulation of the foundation of life (Munson, 2017). Bioethics has not preserved its deontological tradition about Catholic views. Perhaps, it was about bioethical interference nothing more nothing less. Furthermore, life has become the fundamental of the Catholics bioethics, and it is controlled by both man and God.
Another important aspect of the theological reflection is freedom, which depends on the dignity of the man. God has granted every human being freedom, and this includes essential rational dimension. It is the gift from God that a man should accomplish his achievements through self-giving and accepting other people. Moreover, freedom can be justified only when an individual has personal responsibility and orientation to his (her) mission.
The bioethics of catholic is related to the Agape structure of love. Therefore, giving and receiving love depending on which type of medicine should be a mission and not a profession and patients should be considered as the brothers of physicians. It is only through what is received love is given. People normally have the opportunity of coming closer to one another, with the aim of creating dimensions about the meaning of illness and life. However, it becomes disinteresting when the love that is given is transformed into love serving. Such kind of love can never cause any discrimination among the patients, but the provision of care to the whole life. Biological nature of human beings should not be viewed as something different but a sense that brings focus to human life (Harakas, 2018). Therefore, man must find the sense of his structure and integrate the biological nature for the sake of humanity. Furthermore, biological processes do not create any moral demand but an attachment to human life. It creates the belonging to the interpersonal relationship and having the dignity of being considered as the agent of God in his plans of allowing human beings to bear future life.
The bioethics of Orthodox has different ethical judgments. An Orthodox Christian believes in the true source of the Christ's Church, which serves its people as the moral and spiritual direct post of life. Orthodoxy elaborates to the fact that human beings are given guidelines by God the mighty, and the guidelines should not be taken easily. They must reflect the faith confessed by the members of the Church, and in most occasions, the guidelines are based on the fundamental truths about the Orthodox teachings. The teachings proclaim that God was found in the Church of Christ and these kinds of reflections, Orthodox ethics provides the fundamental guidelines relating to the contemporary issues and questions concerning bioethics.
Nonetheless, Orthodox ethics is governed by a few normative regulations. The ethical judgments about this section of religion are based on the Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture. The holy tradition is about the Church's mind, and it is determined by the decisions of the local councils. Most of the modern issues are also elaborated based on the Church's mind, and doctrine should be subjected to general Church criticism, Episcopal, or Synodical (Döring, 2018). Ethicists from the Orthodox section maintain that ethical guidelines can be based on the parallels existing in the tradition. Therefore, human being likeness to God the Almighty should be considered as a potential. Patristic authorities have also distinguished the creation of human beings between God's likeness and God's image. The term image is within the donatum of the emotion, intellect, self-determination, and ethical judgment. However, with the fallen humanity these qualities have remained to be part of weakened, wounded, albeit darkened, and human nature. The term likeness is more or less related to the potential of the human being to resemble God. That is human beings were meant to achieve an ever-expanding perfection. Ethically, Orthodox teaching is about the acceptance of human nature, but it does not restrict human beings from conforming to nature.
Conclusion
In conclusion, theological reflection has a role to play in the bioethics of human engineering. However, different sections of the Church have faced different bioethical challenges, with their attitudes inspired by the Gospel itself. Also, being created in the image of God is a relational concept. It does not only entail the kind of relationship God has with humanity but the relationship that human beings have with one another as far as healthcare is a concern. Therefore, disrupting such kind of relationship with the possible enlarging socioeconomic divisions influenced by enhancement technology brings in serious theological and bioethical questions.
Furthermore, if the enhancement technology is only available to the people with wealth, then in general view societies should be considered as social disorders that only result in the socio-economic discrepancy. Technological enhancement should be deemed as something problematic without the mechanism of social support. However, the risks are still available with the empathy concern about certain disease. Perhaps, human engineering can be used to treat some diseases that are against theological beliefs. It is imperative that future research should be based on how the utilization of enhancement technology will bring serious theological and bioethical effects.
References
Agar, N., 2010, Humanity’s end: Why we should reject radical enhancement, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Beauchamp T, Childress J. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Döring, M. (December 24, 2018). Synthetic biology in the German press: how implications of metaphors shape representations of morality and responsibility. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 14, 1.)
Harakas CC. For the health of body and soul: an Eastern Orthodox Introduction to Bioethics. Available from: www.goarch.org Accessed: December 10, 2018.
Galván, J. M., " Luppicini, R. M. (January 01, 2012). The Humanity of the Human Body: Is Homo Cyber sapiens a New Species?. International Journal of Technoethics (it), 3, 2, 1-8.
Kirkland, R. (June 06, 2008). “Enhancing Life?” Perspectives from Traditional Chinese Value-Systems. The Journal of Law, Medicine " Ethics, 36, 1, 26-40.
Munson, R., " Lague, I. (2017). Intervention and Reflection: Basic issues in bioethics.
Mathieu, R. (July 01, 2016). Jewish ethics and xenotransplantation. Xenotransplantation, 23, 4, 258-268.
Pfleiderer, G., Brahier, G., " Lindpaintner, K. (2010). GenEthics and religion. Basel: Karger.
Qureshi, O., " Padela, A. I. (September 01, 2016). WHEN MUST A PATIENT SEEK HEALTHCARE? BRINGING THE PERSPECTIVES OF ISLAMIC JURISTS AND CLINICIANS INTO DIALOGUE. Zygon®, 51, 3, 592-625.
