2009:  A CRISIS IN REPRODUCTIVE AND GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES

The Vatican statement is critically important because Barack Obama has made clear that he intends to end restrictions on the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and will no doubt take a much broader view of biomedical issues as they relate to ethical questions of life.  Perhaps because of that reality, the waning days of the Bush administration have witnessed an effort to finalize a broad new federal regulation designed to protect health-care workers who object to providing therapies or care they find morally objectionable.  As we transition to 2009 and a new presidential administration, ethical issues that focus on life will be on the front burner.  Despite all the criticism of the Bush administration, the one principle that has consistently been maintained is that life is valuable, even in the womb.  President Bush’s refusal to allow federal money to be spent on embryonic stem cell research is one example.  Another is his signing of legislation to ban partial birth abortion.  President-elect Obama will not maintain that same view.  That is a major concern to me and one that I believe needs to be stressed as we move into 2009.  Ethics matter and a low view of the ethic of life is not pleasing to God.  For that reason, permit me two observations:

• In vitro fertilization has produced a significant unintended consequence—namely the presence of over 400,000 frozen embryos within the United States.  This number is growing significantly each year and when couples, even gay couples, are done with these embryos, no one knows exactly what to do with them.  Embryos can remain viable for a decade or more if they are properly frozen, but not all survive when thawed.  Most clinics that store the embryos charge a “storage fee” to couples or individuals.  But once the couples or individuals are done with the embryos they often stop paying the fee, leaving the clinic with the conundrum of what to do—sustain the embryos in the frozen state or discard them?  Some couples and clinics have the choice of giving the embryos to scientific research, but that raises profound ethical questions because of the nature of the research.  The presence of so many frozen embryos presses civilization with the questions of how to view these embryos:  Are they of value and worth?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  Most couples surveyed are not happy with simply destroying the embryos they created through in vitro fertilization.  Laws govern some of these decisions, depending on the state in which the couple lives.  But there is no consistency in these laws.  If life begins at conception, our culture is facing a profoundly disturbing choice.  That is probably why most people feel a significant level of discomfort in concluding that frozen embryos are merely a “nothing.”  Reproductive technology has produced a disturbing and gut-wrenching choice for modern civilization.  And because there is no ethical consensus on this question, we do not know what to do.  How sad, because the Bible is rather clear on this question.  By disregarding God’s clear directive (e.g., Psalm 139:16), we are dealing with the unintended consequence of in vitro fertilization.

• As we transition to 2009, we need to review the biblical foundation for a biblically sound approach to reproductive and genetic technologies:

• Human beings are created in God’s image.  This makes humans more valuable than any other of God’s creatures.  There is an essential, Creation-order distinction between humans and other created things (both living and non-living).
• Reproductive and genetic technologies fall under the stewardship responsibility of humans.  In Genesis 1:26ff, God creates humans--male and female--in His image and then gives them the responsibility to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth (1:28).”  Verse 29 extends this dominion to plants, trees and seeds.  Although colored by the reality of human sin, this dominion status is repeated for Noah in Genesis 9:1-2.  Because God is sovereign and humans have dominion status, accountability of the human is a necessary corollary.  This matter of accountability has powerful implications in the areas of reproductive and genetic technology.  These technologies give humans power never realized before in history.  Because humans are cursed with sin, it is difficult to be optimistic about the ultimate use of some of these technologies.  God is sovereign; we are stewards!
• The question of using these technologies is probably not so much whether to use them but how, when and at what cost?  For example, in vitro fertilization involves multiple embryos produced in a Petrie dish.  One or two embryos are implanted in the woman’s womb.  The remaining embryos are either destroyed or frozen.  If life begins at conception (as the Bible infers), then destruction of the embryos is the destruction of life.  Gender selection of children, which is now possible, could seriously upset the gender balance of any civilization.  Empowering parents to exercise this kind of control seems unwise, even foolish.  In many of these technologies, we simply do not know the effects of their widespread use.
• Human life itself is of higher value than the quality of human life.  With the eternal perspective that the Bible gives, many of these technologies border on the quality of human life ethic.  Exodus 4:11 contains God’s response to Moses’ claim that he lacked eloquence:  “Who has made man’s mouth?  Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind?  Is it not I, the LORD?”  That God creates in His image establishes value, not height, or sight or hearing.  The same question can be raised about controlling the color of eyes, hair or gender of a baby still in utero.  Where might such practices, seemingly innocuous at first, end?  What might Adolf Hitler done with such power and control?
• From God’s perspective, concern for the improvement of the “inner man” is always more important than concern for improvement of the “outer man.”  Because of death and its inevitability, no procedure or practice will prevent it.  Perhaps that is why the Scripture gives focus to such issues as the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) and the eight quality traits called the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-16).  In the Bible’s perspective these seem more paramount than using certain technologies with a goal that approaches human perfectibility.  There is clear biblical warrant for procedures that restore humans; there is no clear biblical warrant for manipulation toward perfection—an insightful guideline for reproductive and genetic technologies.
• When one views God’s creation, one realizes that values like unpredictability, variety, diversity and uniqueness are central to God’s creative work.  Some genetic technologies seem, at least potentially, to violate His values.  Control over gender selection and other human features could produce a “sameness” that God did not intend.  Does man know how to exercise wisely the kind of power and control that these procedures bring?  With the reality of sin ever before us, it is difficult to answer in the affirmative.  Caution, methodical, meticulous caution, is needed in approaching the genetic minefield.  That is why the prudent, biblical stance is that if a procedure will likely and eventually violate biblical guidelines, it is best to proceed on a very selective basis or to not proceed at all.
• Finally, this civilization must critically examine the scientific imperative.  Simply because society can pursue a particular medical, conception or genetic procedure does not mandate that it must!  Especially in the area of genetics, “can” does not mandate “ought.”  The potential for power and control and its obvious abuse mandate an examination of this imperative.  Perhaps with some of these procedures, it would be wise to not do them at all.

See Laurie Goodstein and Elisabetta Povoloedo in the New York Times (13 December 2008); Michelle Boorstein and Rob Stein in the Washington Post (12 December 2008); Denise Grady in the New York Times (4 December 2008); and James P. Eckman, Biblical Ethics, pp. 44-47.

Print