Christian Bioethics Research Articles

Deadly Language Games: Theological Reflections on Emerging Reproductive Technologies

Abstract This issue of Christian Bioethics explores theological, metaphysical, and ethical questions surrounding emerging reproductive technologies. Narratives concerning such technologies are often manipulated via “language games.” Language games involve toying with language to ensure that one’s vision of the good gains or retains political prominence. Such games are common in academic discussions of “artificial womb” technologies. Abortion proponents, for example, are already using language to dehumanize subjects within “artificial wombs.” This is unsurprising. Were relevant subjects considered persons, then abortion access (and other forms of “reproductive autonomy”) might be curtailed. Here, I show that abortion proponents’ language games often depend on dubious metaphysical claims. Second, I argue that Christians should oppose dehumanizing language games, since those games undermine “neighbor-love,” which Christians are commanded to show others. I also highlight how discussions of other technologies—such as medication abortion—are affected by confused (or manipulative) language. Ultimately, the language games I critique aim to preserve and expand the “rights” of the powerful to dehumanize, control, and kill vulnerable human beings. Since neighbor-love commands Christians to provide for “the least of these,” however, Christians must expose these manipulative language games, refute them, and resist the corrupt ideologies from which they flow.

To Whom is the Chaplain Beholden? Guest Editor Introduction to Special Issue

Abstract In this issue of Christian Bioethics, we invite chaplains and theologians to examine the role of the hospital chaplain in the contemporary institutional setting of the hospital. The simplicity of the chaplain’s role is often taken for granted; yet, this role is actually multivalent, with duties and loyalties pulling from many different sides. Chaplains are people of faith, ordained and/or endorsed ministers, and pastoral care professionals; they are at once beholden to God, to their own faith expression, and to their sense of vocation, to the hospital, and to the patient. With various loyalties and responsibilities in mind, we must ask the question, “To whom is the chaplain beholden?” The responses in this issue critically and constructively examine this question, providing theological resources that call chaplaincy away from the dominant modes of medicine. Whether through a primary loyalty to their calling, to God, to Divine presence, or to the spiritual formation of the patient, the authors in this special issue aim to help chaplains find theological resources to faithfully withstand the tensions they face in modern medical institutions.

“My Body, My Choice”: A Comparative Study between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christian Bioethics on the “Absolutization” of Autonomy

“My Body, My Choice”: A Comparative Study between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christian Bioethics on the “Absolutization” of Autonomy

“But I Am Afflicted” Attending to Persons in Pain and Modern Health Care

Abstract Over one in five adults in the United States and around the world are estimated to live with chronic pain. How are we to attend well to persons living with pain? This is a difficult, pressing question for both healthcare institutions and Christian communities, and it is only made more complex both by the contemporary opioid crisis and by how experiences of pain and addiction are shaped in the American context by race, gender, and class. Attending faithfully to persons in pain demands thoughtful, creative resources on both practical and conceptual levels. In this special issue of Christian Bioethics, eight scholars from different disciplines—Sarah Barton, Farr Curlin, Jaime Konerman-Sease, Brett McCarty, Joel Shuman, Devan Stahl, John Swinton, and Emmy Yang—engage the meaning of attending to persons in pain for Christian bioethics and for faithful Christian practice.

No Acceptable Losses: Risk, Prevention, and Justice

Abstract Beginning in the nineteenth century, social statistics inspired a vision of society as a population characterized by a certain distribution of risks. The introduction of the risk paradigm has deep implications for central concepts in Christian social ethics like distributive justice, with this vision leading to a new concept of distributive justice as the equal distribution of risk. This essay describes tensions that arise due to the risk paradigm in relation to distributive justice: risks can always be further reduced, risk mitigation creates other risks, and there is no inherent rule of justice for balancing risks. While recognition of shared risk can create social cohesion, it also leads to interest groups struggling over which risks to confront. The essay illustrates these problems with two examples from health care: preventive health programs that manage disease risk through medication, and debates over school closures in respond to the Covid pandemic. Christian bioethics, as it wrestles with issues of justice, must address the problems created by the risk paradigm.

Embryonic Afterlives?

While much has been written on the moral and metaphysical status of fetuses in Christian bioethics, little thought has been given to how we might characterize the afterlives of the unborn, especially of those human biological individuals who die before even developing a body that could theoretically be resurrected. In this paper, I therefore undertake an examination of questions surrounding the afterlife, specifically as it relates to early pregnancy loss. I first lay out what I call the “problem of weird heavens” that arises when we consider that significantly more unborn human beings have died than have been born in the history of humankind. I then go on to consider questions surrounding both the soteriological status of the embryo and the status of any resurrected “body” it might have. I conclude with the germs of an alternative approach mirrored on the idea of embryonic resorption and mystical union.

Sources for Christian Bioethics: The Orthodox Discourse on Sin

AbstractThe article discusses ways of developing bioethical guidance in the Orthodox Christian discourse. Here, “ethical” refers to what contributes to holiness, “un-ethical” refers to sin as what hinders man’s foundational calling to holiness. To explore the development of guidance for emerging bioethical issues, we use the “therapeutic” understanding of treatment for sin in two senses. (1) It refers to the spiritual means provided by the “hospital” of the Orthodox Church for healing the fallenness of human nature in general; and (2) it helps identify in particular cases both what counts as transgression of unconditional boundaries (defining what is illicit for everyone) and what is advisable in order to help particular persons to choose rightly within the area of the “more or less licit” (or “permissible”). Sources of the Orthodox faith that frame the general understanding of the boundaries between the permissible and the impermissible reflect the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church framing her Sacred (Holy) Tradition. In Holy Tradition, prayers, as communion with God, occupy a central position. This is why Orthodox moral reasoning, and thus also Orthodox bioethics, takes the form of liturgical bioethics. Penalties of excommunication determine hard boundaries that believers should not overstep: when crossing such boundaries, they enter on a spiritually dangerous path that completely distracts them away from God. Many minor sins, by contrast, have not been codified in Canons. They are not taken to remove the sinner completely from contact with the Lord. Within this realm of actions, it depends on a person’s spiritual maturity whether such actions are classified as sinful. Thus, an act can be counted merely as a small offense if committed by a beginner, while that same act can become a grave sin for an advanced believer. Due to acceleration of the technological progress, Orthodox recourse to Holy Tradition encounters ever-new challenges. There are bioethical issues that had not surfaced at the time of the Fathers of the Church. Today, Bishops gathered at a local council can supply the guidance lacking on a newly emerging bioethical problem. Even if ratified only by such local councils, the resulting decrees can also be regarded as the expression of the Holy Spirit working within a local Church and conveying His guidance. The article illustrates this source of Christian bioethics by reference to how the Russian Orthodox Church orients and develops its position on the ethics of reproductive technologies.

Foundations of Christian Bioethics: Metaphysical, Conceptual, and Biblical

AbstractHow can we definitively determine which biomedical choices are morally correct and which engage in seriously wrongful acts? Depending on whom one asks, one is informed that choices such as abortion, euthanasia, and significant body modification involve real moral harm (either as forms of murder or as denying the goodness of the body that God has provided), or that disallowing such “medical care” violates the basic rights of persons (where abortion, active euthanasia, and body modification are appreciated as positive expressions of personal autonomy). Secular bioethics appears no longer able to appreciate what could possibly be wrong with such activities, provided that the individuals involved consent in some fashion. Indeed, many actions that were once openly and easily recognized as sinful have become so commonplace, as well as politically desirable, as to appear as if they were obviously good. As the authors in this issue of Christian Bioethics explore, fully to appreciate the serious moral issues raised by modern medicine requires a foundational orientation to the Christian God.

An Ambitious Goal: A Grounded, Informed, and Compelling Theological Bioethics

AbstractIn Disability's Challenge to Theology: Genes, Eugenics, and the Metaphysics of Modern Medicine (Notre Dame Press, 2022), Devan Stahl establishes an ambitious goal: develop a Christian bioethics that is metaphysically grounded, informed by the experience of disability, and culturally compelling. She argues that personhood is not the possession of certain abilities; all humans are worthy of dignity and respect because they are created by God in God's image. According to Stahl, persons should be valued for who they are and treated with radical acceptance. Interventions on the body should be judged on whether they promote flourishing, and such judgments should be informed by the experience of disability and made in community. These arguments will be of interest to Christian bioethics, disability scholars, and those interested in the capability approach, but clinical ethicists may find Stahl's book less compelling.

(Re)-Emerging Challenges in Christian Bioethics: Leading Voices in Christian Bioethics.

This is the third installment in a Christian Bioethics series that gathers leading voices in Christian bioethics to examine the themes and issues they find most pressing. The papers address fundamental theoretical questions about the nature of Christian bioethics itself, long-standing ethical issues that remain significant today, including physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, the definition of death, the allocation of scarce resources, and finally, more futuristic questions regarding transhumanism. The contributions underscore the enduring significance of Christian engagement in bioethics.

Christian Bioethics would like to thank the following guest reviewers for their help during the past year

Christian Bioethics would like to thank the following guest reviewers for their help during the past year Get access Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, Volume 27, Issue 3, December 2021, Page 312, https://doi.org/10.1093/cb/cbab020 Published: 08 December 2021

Christian Bioethics and the Partisan Commitments of Secular Bioethicists: Epistemic Injustice, Moral Distress, Civil Disobedience

Abstract Secular bioethicists do not speak from a place of distinction, but from within particular culturally, socially, and historically conditioned standpoints. As partisans of moral and ideological agendas, they bring their own biases, prejudices, and worldviews to their roles as ethical consultants, social advocates, and academics, attempting rhetorically to sway others and shift policy to a preferred point of view. Their pronouncements represent just one voice among others, even when delivered with strident rhetoric, in an educated and knowing tone, from within institutional positions of power. This essay argues that, given the hegemony of progressive secular bioethics, traditional Christians routinely face epistemic injustice within medicine. That is, Christian knowledge regarding moral reality is all too often demeaned or dismissed, unless such norms can be translated into and defended within a secular ethos. Given such systemic bias, I argue, Christians also experience significant moral distress: they are fully aware of their moral obligations and what they ought to do, but institutionalized power structures make it nearly impossible to so act. But, Christian physicians are not mere technicians, obliged to provide whatever patients request from the list of legally available treatments. That antireligious critics seek to remove the rights of Christian physicians to limit how they practice medicine, where they do not offer or refer for abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and other inappropriate forms of care, is unjustified and prejudicial, singling out Christians, and other religious groups, for singular treatment. Regardless of what the law requires or institutional policy demands, however, Christians are obliged to submit to God in all things. As a result, they may at times find themselves required to engage in acts of civil disobedience.

Christian Bioethics: Reflections on a Quarter-Century with the Journal

Abstract This essay reflects on 25 years since Christian Bioethics began publication and, in somewhat autobiographical fashion, engages two core concerns. First, although “non-ecumenism” may often appear a pretext for contention and division, I suggest that a respectful non-ecumenism may provide the opportunity for dialogue and the occasion for employing certain tools from religious studies. Second, although many are skeptical about the possibilities of identifying a “common morality,” a defense of that notion provides a plausible explanation for the development of limited consensus on some issues in bioethics.

The Doctor–Patient Relationship: Does Christianity Make a Difference?

AbstractThe nature of the doctor–patient relationship is central to the practice of medicine and thus to bioethics. The American Medical Association (in AMA principles of medical ethics, available at: https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/patient-physician-relationships, 2016) states, “The practice of medicine, and its embodiment in the clinical encounter between a patient and a physician, is fundamentally a moral activity that arises from the imperative to care for patients and to alleviate suffering.” In this issue of Christian Bioethics, leading scholars consider what relevance (if any) Christianity brings to the relationship between physician and patient: does Christianity make a difference? The contributors consider this question from several different perspectives: the proper model of medicine, the role that the Christian moral tradition can play in medicine in a secular pluralistic society, how a Christian understanding of virtue can inform practices such as perinatal hospice and physician-assisted suicide, and whether or not appeals to Christian values can (or should) ground a physician’s right to conscientious objection.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL CONCEPT OF MAN AS AN INTEGRATED PERSONALITY IN THE CATHOLIC TRADITION OF BIOETHICS

In modern bioethical research and the practice of their implementation, two opposite directions can be traced: ethical absolutism in Christian philosophy and ethical relativism in utilitarianism and pragmatism. Christian bioethics is based on the anthropological concept of man as integrated personality and social being. The thesis of the dignity of the human person is contained in the biblical concept of the creation of man in the image and likeness of God. The Christian anthropological concept is based on the perception of the individual as an inseparable unity of the physical and the spiritual. Christian moral norms should be seen in the context of the phenomenon of the gift.

Secular Law, Lawmaking in Christian Bioethics and IVF

Secular Law, Lawmaking in Christian Bioethics and IVF

From Quandary Cases to Ordinary Life: New Opportunities to Connect Social Ethics and Health Care Ethics

In Christian bioethics, the call for a greater integration of social ethics and medical ethics is a popular refrain, yet lasting progress toward this goal has been elusive, in part due to the traditional emphasis on quandary cases in medical ethics. This article develops an alternative approach to moral discernment in health care, employing a theological interpretation of solidarity to promote greater social consciousness in ordinary health care decision making. This shifts the ethical analysis from abstract scenarios to everyday choices, elevating the moral significance of seemingly mundane concerns like antibiotic use and diet and exercise.

Beyond a Bourgeois Bioethics

This essay draws on the work of Johann Baptist Metz to reimagine a Christian Bioethics that develops from the place of suffering. Beginning from the place of suffering resists the future offered within the scientific-technological paradigm. In turning to Metz, Christian bioethics should give greater attention to complex social structures that contribute to injustices and inequalities resulting in health disparities and unnecessary deaths.

There’s No Harm in Talking: Re-Establishing the Relationship Between Theological and Secular Bioethics

Theological and secular voices in bioethics have drifted into separate silos. Such a separation results in part from (1) theologians focusing less on conveying ideas in ways that contribute to a pluralistic and public bioethical discourse and (2) the dwindling receptivity of religious arguments within secular bioethics. This essay works against these drifts by putting forward an argument that does not bounce around a religious echo-chamber, but instead demonstrates how insights of Christian anthropology can be meaningfully responsive to secular bioethics’ rightful concerns with inequality and injustice. We offer core concepts from Christian bioethics that encourage dialogue with secular and theological bioethicists. The theologically-grounded concepts, human dignity, sin, and the common good, provide intellectual resources to address major areas of bioethical concern that remain unresolved.

Christian Bioethics: Immanent Goals or a Transcendent Orientation?

AbstractThis issue of Christian Bioethics explores foundational debates regarding the orientation and application of Christian bioethics. Should Christian bioethics be approached as essentially a human activity, grounded in scholarly study of theological arguments and religious virtues, oriented toward practical social ends, or should Christian bioethics be recognized as the result of properly oriented prayer, fasting, and asceticism leading to an encounter with God? The gulf between these two general perspectives—the creation of immanent human goods versus submission to a fully transcendent God—is significant and, as ongoing debate in Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality over the past nearly three decades has made clear, the implications are both intellectually engaging and spiritually profound.