1988 issue 3 - gods law and medical ethics - counsel of chalcedon

8/12/2019 1988 Issue 3 - Gods Law and Medical Ethics - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/4

m God s Law andMedical Ethicsby John M. Otis

It is quite apparent to the astute observer that American society is in a stateof great flux with regards to its ethicalpractices . Certain practices that manyAmericans would have considered im-moral thirty or forty years ago are s ~by many today as acceptable behavior.

For example, there has been a revolution in American perspectives concern:ing sexual behavior. Divorce is a growing problem in our society. Nationwide, one out of every three marriagesend in divorce. Years ago it was a social

stigma to have a divorce . This is not tosay that marriages were necessarily anyhappier than today; it simply means .that people saw divorce as a failure anda disgrace and tried to avoid it. Today,this stigma is no longer present andcouples are quick to terminate their marriages.

There has been a remarkable changein public attitudes toward pre-marital .sex. Years ago most Americans wouldhave seen such behavior as immoral. Acouple should wait until marriage, for

this is only proper. Today, pre -maritalsex is an acceptable social behavior inits r i g h tcontext. It is even encouraged in certain situations by some counselors _n order to determine whether acouple is sexually compatible. The s u p prisedly right context for pre-marital sexis when the couple is in love. Thismystical subjective feeling that is referr ed to is said to be the justificationfor this behavior. Recently , PlannedParenthood (I choose to refer to it as .Planned Social Destruction andDegrada- 'tion) aired a commercial on television

John M Otis is aPC minister

residing In Roswell, Geo _gla.

that promulgated such thinking. Toparaphrase the commercial, the advertisement said that sex without love iswrong; however, if you are going tohave sex then you might as well knowthe facts. Contact your local PlannedParenthood agency.

Thirty or forty years ago to becomepregnant out of wedlock was also asocial stigma. A very conunon solutionto this problem back then was for thecouple to get married . Or, if the girlwas young, such as a teenager, the

parents would send her off to have herbaby. Today's solution is much dif-ferent. First, to become pregnant out ofwedlock is not seen so much as an immoral act but the unfortunate conse- quence of the sexual encounter. One ofthe most common remedies today is forthe girl to murder the baby by havingan abortion. We can see a shift over theyears in public opinion concerning abortion. What was once unthinkable isnow acceptable.

How do we account for such a shift

in public attitudes? Canwe

say that thegeneration of thirty to forty years agowas more moral than today's generation? I really don't think so. It may betrue that the earlier generation wasoperating from a quasi moral or biblicalethic; however, this generation did nothave a sure footing in a biblical ethic.Otherwise their children would not havedeparted so radically from a biblicalmoral standard . The problem is that theolder generation did not teach a biblicalethic to its offspring. I t did not teachthat right and wrong is determinedsolely by God's Word. s in the day ofthe book of Judges, there arose a generation that did not know God's law. Theparents failed to instruct their childrenin the Law; hence, the children had nobiblical concept of morality.

Any time a society neglects or forsakes God's Law as its standard of

morality, there will always be horrendous consequences. We are merely reaping what we have sown. Absolute law,which is biblical law, does not shiftwith time. Basically, the ethic that hasgoverned American society in thi s century is twofold . There is the existentialethic which is the ethic of subjectivism. Each person's moral standardis governed by what they feel is rightand wrong . In other words, each persondoes what is right in his own eyes.Then , there is the utilitarian ethicwhich says that right and wrong isdetermined by what the majoritybelieves. This supposedly is done forthe common good. It is the tyranny ofthe majority. Both of these ethicalsystems are rooted in a rel ativistic viewof morality. There is no absoluteethical norm that is always binding

upon society. It can change with eachperson and with public opinion.

These ethical standards lend themselves susceptible to the persuasivearguments of even a minority. Publicopinion is fickle. t can change its mindas soon as someone can convincinglyargue his case. This explains the shiftin the public opinion concerning abortion . Certain influential segments began to argue that life does not begin atconception and that a woman has aright over her own body anyway. This

inaccurate and ungodly thinking wonthe day. It is amazing to see how manypeople, who support abortion , use thisline of thinking . It is obvious that thisis what they have been taught. Whensociety adopts such a relativistic moralstandard, it will inevitably sink to thedepths of moral depravity simplycause natural man is totally depraved, asthe Bible teaches.

One of the most frightening aspectsof these ethical systems is manifestedin the medical profession. In one sense,medical ethics is merely the extensionof the dominant ethics of the day. Thisfact has terrifying consequences becausehuman beings begin to die at the handsof those who are supposed to preservelife. It is deplorable to see how manydoctors have succumbed to our society'sview of morality concerning the abortion issue. Many doctors, who perform

The Counsel of Cbalcedon, March, 1988 P a g e 7


2/4

abortions , avoid the issue by sayingthat the question of when life begins isa philosophi cal or religious qu e stion,which is of no concern to them. Thosedoctors who are honest with the factsmust c onfess that human life biologi cally begins at conception . The author of

this article was once a pre-med studentin college, having majored in zoologyand having taken courses in embryology. From a genetic viewpoint, Ilearned that the fertilized egg is a newhuman life.

The relativistic ethical standards thatare dominating our present medical profession have also led us to the acceptance of euthanasia (the killing of theaged) and infanticide (the killing of in -fants, u sually with severe ph ysical ormental handicaps). There have been

those who supported abortion but whohave not been so eager to supporteuthanasia and infanticide. Thei r rationale has been that these last two practices are definitely the termination ofhuman life. However, public acceptanceof euthanasia and infantic i de is a growing reality in this nation, just as abortion was gradually accepted . It is afrightening fact that many abortionistshave shifted their justification for abortion. No longer are many denying thathuman life begins at conception. Theirrationale for abortion is that there areextenuating circumstances which justifythe killing of the unborn. Some ofthese situations are: the family can tafford another child, the child mightgrow up in an abusive horne (isn 't thisridiculous - to avoid possible childabuse later on you kil l the child beforeit is born), the child is not a wantedchild thus it will not be loved, and thechild might be born wi th a severe handicap. Now the meaning and value of lifeis dependent upon social factors. Withsuch devaluati on of human life, who is

really safe? Nobody The practice of euthanasia and infanti

cide is the logical culmination of arelativistic ethical standard. Finally,pagan man is consistent with his philosophy of life. I f prenatal life can bejustifiably terminated for certain socialreasons, then any human being canultimately be tenninated if it is in the

interest of the common good.This ungodly ethical system has th

medical profession in a stranglehold.One can only imagine what is on thehorizon in the medical world . Justrecently, the NBC Today Show featureda segment with a Mexican doctor by the

name of Dr. Madrazo. The news itemwas that this doctor had succes sfullybeen a part of one of the first brain tobrain transplants. n adult, who wassuffering from Parkinson's di sease,received transplanted tissue from an aborted fetus. The adult experienced apparent relief . Some were hailing this asa possible cure for Parkinson 's dise a.se.The show's host, Bryant Gumbel, askedDr. Madrazo about the ethical ramifications of using aborted fetal tissue formedical purposes. He asked the doctor if

he felt comfortable with this. The doctor's reply was that he had no problem .It has been a known fact to some that

the medical profession has been u singaborted babies for ghastly sCientific experiments already. What we are seeingis that murdered babies by abortion arebecoming excellent cada vers for medicine. Now we have another good reasonfor abortion - we can use their bodyparts for medical cures. Isn 't this wonderful ? From a biblical ethical standard -God's Law - this is deplorable. From a

utilitarian ethlcal standard, what iswrong with this? i f great medical curescan be found by using aborted fetu ses,then society's common good has beenserved . Note the irony - human life ismurdered so that human life can bespared. Such is the bankruptcy of think-ing apart from God's law.

What can we expect to come in medical ethics? God forbid, anything is possible. In recent years , the technique ofcloning has been the subject of greatinterest. Cloning is the means ofasexually reproducing life . I t has been

successfully accomplished in plant lifeand among Amphibian s , especiallyfrogs. How is cloning achieved? Thetechnical term for cloning is nu cleartransplantation. The procedure frr st requires the taking of an egg from afemale and enucleating it (this meansthe removal of the hereditary materialfrom the egg cell 's nucleus) . After this

is done, the nucleus from a body cellfrom a don or is transplanted into theegg cell's vacant nucleus. The astonishing phenomenon is that the organismthat develops i s a genetic duplicate ofthe donor. I t is an identical twin. Thisis all accomplished asexually ; without

the uniting of male spenn with thefemale egg . t h i n t ~ tin cloningstems from the de sire to learn how tocontrol ceil biology, says Dr RobertMcKinnell, who has wri tten extensively in this area. Perhap s the cures tocancer and the secrets of aging lie inunderstanding cel lular biology, he sa ys

If lower animal life forms can becloned, what about human beings?Thus far, human cloning has been theprimary interest of sc ien ce fictionwriters. Is human cloning possible and

what purpose would it serve? Accordingto Dr. McKinnell and other specialistsin this field, it is highly possible toclone a human being. he difficulty incloning ~ being s is primarily oneof technolog y . The human egg is muchsmaller than a frog egg, and the processof enucleating a human egg would bemuch more difficult. Howe ver, Dr.McKinnell wrote in 1979 that the technology for this procedure w as probablyalready pre sent. There ha ve been somereports that human cloning has alreadytaken place , but these reports are un verifiable. Knowing man 's curiosity andthe advances of medical technologywithin the past nine years, probablyhuman cloning is secretl y being doneamong some biologists.

In his books on cloning, Cloning: ABwlog ist Reports and Cloning oFrogs Mi ce nd Other Animals Dr.Robert McKinnell discusses the ethicsof human cloning . I t is interesting thatDr. McKillilell probably comes from asomewhat different ethical basis thanothers in his field . He write s in his

book, Cloning: A Bwlogist Reportson page4 :

"Although I might consider examining, stud ying, manipulating, and dis secting a human egg untouched by humanspenn, l would, in fact , be loath tocontrive an experiment on an egg already 'launched into life by ordinary bisexual reproduction .' Such an egg c ould

Page 28 T h e Counsel of Chalcedon , March, 1988


3/4

be obtained by only the most heroicmeans (fertilization occurs in the Fallopian tubes). Removal of a fertilized eggfrom the reproductive tract of a womancould be considered an abortion. Toabort for purely experimental reason isclearly unthinkable.

Why is Dr. McKinnell basically op

posed to human cloning? He says onpage 103 of his book Cloning oFrogs Mice and Other Animals:

To clone a human the fertilized eggmust be enucleated. That means that anascent human being must be eliminated, and the eliminat ion procedure, atleast during the developmental phase ofhuman cloning research, would have nosignificance other than experimental .

The key concept is that for humancloning to be possible the nucleus of afertilized egg must be replaced. At least

Dr. McKinnell recognizes the obviousbiological fact - replacing the nucleusof a fertilized egg is the destruction ofat least a nascent human life. Athoroughly Christian and biblical perspective would say that i t is not a nascent life but a full fledged human beingin its earliest stages of development.Human cloning requires the murder ofone human being in order to create anidentical twin of the donor. For thisreason alone, the Christian must beopposed to human cloning.

Why would scientists want to pursuethe avenue of human cloning? Obviously, many would have no scruples abouttampering with fertilized human ovum.Some have postulated that humancloning could achieve the creation of athousand Einsteins . However, Dr.McKinnell astutely recognizes that thisis virtually impossible. Cloned humanbeings woul d be no different than anyother person except for genetic identitywith the nuclear donor. To have anexact duplicate, McKinnell says thisconcerning the cloned human :

His parents, his siblings, his schoolmates , his teachers, and all of his lifeexperiences would have to be recreatedto recreate him. That clearly is not possible.

Dr. McKinnell correctly observesthat a human being is more than hisgenetic constitution. A human being is

the product of his genetic structure andhis environment

There is one area which probably offers the most promise for human cloning from a relativistic moral standard It has to do with organ transplantation .Dr. McKinnell even recognizes this as apossible reason for cloning humans. He

says:The acceptance of tissue transplants

without rejection among members of anisogenic group is a possible benefit ofthe cloning technique . Rejection ofgrafted tissue among individuals withina clone does not occur, just as anidentical twin does not reject surgicallytransplanted tissue obtained from its

genetically identical sibling . Because ofthis. some writers have suggested thatone or more clones be fabricated toserve as a source of spare parts for anuclear donor.

I am convinced that the unbelievingmedical scientist will see this as morethan sufficient reason to pursue humancloning. Several years ago I saw ascience fiction movie entitled TheClonus Horror After watching it, I saidto my wife nd others that this moviewas prophetic. In the movie script,there was a secret operation calledClonus that was being carried on in thefoothills of California. At Clonus,human beings had being successfullycloned. All of these clones had beencreated and nurtured at this facility fortwenty years or so. They were completely isolated from the outside world .Most of the clones had been surgicallyaltered so that they had mental deficiencies. which would make themmore easily manageable. Only a fewclones were allowed to develop normally. The clones were put throughrigorous physical training in order to

achieve the optimum physical shapepossible for that clone. To graduatefrom the facility meant that the Cloneswere going to go to the USA. and thisbecame the dream of every Clone to goto the USA. n reality, going to theUSA meant that the Clone was put insuspended animation for spare organ

parts for its donor. n the movie, one ofthe clones that was allowed to developnormally accidentally escapes Clonusand wanders into Los Angeles. Ofcourse, this causes a panic at Clonusfor this operation must remain a secretat all costs. It turns out that a prominent U.S. senator, who is a leadingcandidate for the presidency, is behindthe whole project. Years ago he had aclone m de from him. The classic linein the movie was when someone questioned this Senator as to the ethics of

cloning humans nd using them asspare organ parts. The Senator was rebuked for sanctioning the murder ofhuman beings for such practices. TheSenator's reply was these are nothuman beings; after all, this offers uspractically immortality. In the end, theproject is exposed by the press and thehOITor of Clonus is revealed The premise is that the public would view thisproject with disgust

When I saw this movie, I said thatone day this would become a reality inour ungodly society. Note the classicline again - these are not human beings. Isn t it ironic that the abortionists began by justif ying their abominable murder by saying - the fetus isnot a human being. Since the unbornare considered non-humans by the Supreme Court thereby having no civilrights under the Constitution, what isthere to stop the medical professionfrom using fetuses as spare parts7Knowing the track record of the Supreme Court. I wouldn't be surprised ifhuman cloning was successfully engineered, the Supreme Court wouldprobably declare these clones as nonhumans in order to cater to a revolutionary medical breakthrough.

Think about t We are already living. in a society which operates from an

existential and utilitarian ethical standard- whatever feels right and whatever

The Counsel of Chalcedon, March, 1988 P a g e 9


4/4

is for the common good of the majorityis that which is morally right. Supposea future President of the United Statesbecomes chronically iii because of a defective heart. His only hope for survivalis a heart transplanl I t so happened thatthere was a clone made of him who is

now age 21. Imagine replacing theworn out heart of a 60 year old President with an identical heart of his clonewho is only 21. Why, it would e inthe national interest for this belovedPresident to have a new heart

This unbiblical ethic is seeking to bedefended by scientists on the groundsthat the U.S . Constitution grants freedom of speech through the first Amendment. fu the April, 1987 issue ofBioscience there was a review of a bookby Ira H. Carmen. Carmen's book wasentitled Cloning and th Cmutitution :An Inquiry into Governmental Policy-making and Genetic E x p e ~ n t a t i o nCannen believes that a scientist's endeavors are protected by Constitutionalliberty. He believes that scientificresearch is covered under the freedom ofspeech segment in the First Amendment His reasoning? f scientificspeech is free expression, then the con -duct of research that supplies that expression is "quasi-speech" and also acivil liberty . Carmen says in his bookthat government goes too far i f i t

attempts to dictate what experimentsshould e conducted and what resultsachieved. In an earlier chapter in hisbook, Carmen goes to great length todemonstrate that we have a "living Con-stitution." Doesn t this sound familiarto those liberal Constitutional lawyerswho say that the m eaning of theConstitution and its proper interpretation is a reflection of the present society 's beliefs ? Thus , we have thosevo i ces in the medical world who areinsisting that it is their Constitutional

freedom to perform all kinds of experiments on human life .Only in the Scripture do we fmd an

ethical standard designed to glorify ourCreator and one which promotes truehappiness and freedom . Natural mandoes not want to submit to God's lawbecause he is in rebellion against hiscreator. The unbeliever will diligently

search fOr any way to express his ownautonomy (self-law). The creation ofhis own ethical system not only insultshis Creator , but it ultimately enslavesmen and leads to the demise of a culture.

American society is wallowing in the

mire of secular humanism . The autonomous eth ic of secular humanism hascreated a monstrous society which allows the justification for the destructionof the unborn . It has created a societythat has a declining value for the postnatal human. We are now killing ourinfants and aged . Is this freedom? Willseeular humanism usher in the utopiathat l.t promises? Of course not Onlywhen a society espouses a theonomicethic (God's law) will it insure its c o n ~tinuation with true justice and freedom.The choice is always either autonomy(self-law) or theonomy (God's law).

Probably the saddest thing of all isthe unsure trumpet that is being sounded in so called "Christian" sectors. I amgrieved to see the theonomic ethic cri ticized among evangelicals, especiallyconservative Presbyterians . There arethose who actually shy aw ay from theidea of Christianizin g Ameri ca. Thereare those who say that they do notallow their Christianity to influencetheir vocational practices . One prominent Southern Baptist leader made such

a comment not too long ago. I contendthat i f one is not interested in Chris-

tianizing America, then that perSon olrViously is in oppositiOn to the GreaCommission as found m Matthew28:18-20 . Jesus said to niak:e . discipleSo f all the nations. Making disciplesmeans that one brings into captiVity aithoughts to the obedience of Christ l

Cor . 10:3-5). It means that we teach thenations everything that Jesus commanded as the cotn:mission states Christianizing America is the carrying out othe Great Conunission. The theonomicethic and the preached Gospel go handin hand. When men are saved out otheir sin and misery they will gladl ysubmit to God's law as the tneans otheir growth in holiness. f they don 'tthen they have not experienced thespiritua1 rebirth. This is what Ronians8:1-17 explicitly teaches.

f here is going to be a medical ethicthat honors the sanctity o f human lifethen there is a desperate need for theChristian community to pray to theiheavenly Father to ha ve mercy on usThere is a need to recover an ethi castandard for society that glorifies Godand grants man true liberty and happines s . I t is time to expo se the bankrupt cy of humanistic ethi c al thlnkingIt is time to rally the soldiers of thcr os s. It is time to sound the trumpet ovictory. It is time to encourage thesaints with the Lord' s promise of vic

tory. After all, how can a sovereignGod lose? ]

s a t.J/0 -a ; ? W ~ e

11 .J M

1988 issue 3 - gods law and medical ethics - counsel of chalcedon

Documents