Sanctity Of Human Life Research Articles

David Novak, . The Sanctity of Human Life. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2007. xvi+186 pp. $34.95 (cloth).

Previous articleNext article No AccessBook ReviewDavid Novak, . The Sanctity of Human Life. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2007. xvi+186 pp. $34.95 (cloth).Samuel H. BrodySamuel H. BrodyUniversity of Chicago. Search for more articles by this author University of Chicago.PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Religion Volume 89, Number 1January 2009 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/595912 Views: 16Total views on this site © 2009 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. For permission to reuse, please contact [email protected]PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: Rationale and Ethics, an Islamic Perspective

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5915/39-4-6316 Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is a relatively new procedure meant to diagnose genetic or chromosomal defects in fertilized eggs produced by in vitro fertilization (IVF) so as to avoid implanting an embryo. It has also been used to diagnose mutations associated with several types of cancer. One or two blastomeres are removed from the preembryo (8-16 cell morula stage). A polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure tests for genetic mutations, and fluoresence in situ hybridization (FISH) tests for chromosomal abnormalities. The various clinical applications of PGD are presented and classified into acceptable, questionable, and unacceptable. The main advantage of PGD is that it will eliminate or significantly reduce the risk couples with genetic diseases face of having a baby with those diseases, thus avoiding some terminations of pregnancy. However, PGD raises significant ethical issues, the most important of which is the sanctity of human life. While PGD does not result in loss of biopsied healthy preembryos, it involves discarding of affected human embryos. The arguments for and against this are discussed in detail. Further, the implications of PGD on a societal level and the danger of using it for eugenics are also discussed. While the use of PGD for sex selection for medical reasons is acceptable, its use for nonmedical reasons is controversial. Islam encourages scientific developments as long as they benefit humankind and do not contradict basic Islamic rulings. Most Muslim scholars approve of PGD use as it involves a preembryo before it is implanted and allows for benefits to the couple involved, i.e. the prevention of having a baby with genetic diseases. They do not approve of its use for sex selection for nonmedical reasons.

Missed opportunity for stem-cell research

President Bush recently vetoed the bill passed by Congress (HR 810: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005) that would have expanded federally supported embryonic stem-cell research. He stated that the bill violated the sanctity of human life by destroying embryos left over from the

Sanctity of Human Life in War: Ethics and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

This reflective paper focuses on the moral and ethical difficulties medical care providers meet in applying DSM-IV criteria of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in therapy and in Compensation and Pension Examinations. Providers may be less interested in articulating a philosophy of life or their own ontology than about documenting care for the patient or providing effective management of symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The veteran comes for assessment or therapy after an embodiment of war conflicts. Examiners and therapists spend time in clinical judgments and ethical consideration. Ethical decisions involve the sanctity of human life and the distinction made between acceptable civil and war behavior. Insight into the conflicting values found in the veterans' struggle to cope with the stress of war is needed. The stress of sending young men into harm's way is an ethical issue for veterans and the society which sends them and thereby compromises the sanctity of human life. These ethical components require the doctor and the veteran to articulate their values within ontology or a personal philosophy of life. That exchange contributes to accurate assessment and adequate therapy. Not understanding the importance of personal ontologies in treatment may make the veteran's self-disclosure difficult. Self-disclosure of one's ontology is one side of coping with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The other side is for powerful decision-making groups to disclose to the young recruits the full and honest account of the human cost of war before sending them into harm's way.

Life and Death Matters: Losing a Sense of the Value of Human Beings

The essay combines a specific and a more general theme. In attacking 'the doctrine of the sanctity of human life' Singer takes himself thereby to be opposing the conviction that human life has special value. I argue that this conviction goes deep in our lives in many ways that do not depend on what Singer identifies as central to that 'doctrine', and that his attack therefore misses its main target. I argue more generally that Singer's own moral philosophy affords only an impoverished and distorted sense of the value of human life and human beings. In purporting to dig below the supposedly illusion-ridden surface of our thinking about value, Singer in fact often leads us away from the robust terrain of our lived experience into rhetorical, and sometimes brutal, fantasy.

Rethinking "Liberal Eugenics": Reflections and Questions on Habermas on Bioethics

Eugenics, euthanasia, and selection: these are terms that, in Germany, are bound together with awful memories," the German President Johannes Rau observed in a speech in 2001. "They thus provoke--and rightly so--emotional resistance." (1) The story of how "emotional resistance" to the notion of euthanasia for severely disabled newborn infants led to the "silencing" of Peter Singer while he was in Germany in 1989 is well known. (2) More recently, human embryonic stem cell research, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), and the prospect of prenatal genetic "engineering" or enhancement have provoked similarly strong reactions. (3) In the words of two German commentators, for many Germans both old and young, "the fact that almost the entire population passively tolerated the Nazis' mass crimes is taken as sufficient warning against any relativization whatsoever of the sanctity of human life." (4) Yet there has lately arisen what one commentator called "a revolt in the intellectual world against the 'political correctness' that prevails in Germany's treatment of the Nazi past." (5) According to the dissenters, "A deeply rooted fear of a loss of societal values--a very German argument--leads to hasty and premature legal prohibitions," among which is adduced the 1990 Law for the Protection of Human Embryos. (6) President Rau speaks for those wary of biotechnological advances: "The experience that we had with National Socialism, in particular with research and science in the Third Reich, must play an important role for ethical judgment--and not only among us [Germans]." (7) The dissenters hold, by contrast, that "[t]he declining Weimar Republic and the National Socialist regime differed in many relevant regards from Germany's current democracy." (8) From this point of view, Germans have much to learn from liberal-minded Anglo-American bioethical discourse, rather than Anglo-Americans and others much to learn from Germany's history. Such is the background to the distinguished political philosopher Jurgen Habermas's 2001 book, The Future of Human Nature: On the Way to a Liberal Eugenics? (9) This text has now been translated into English, (10) but even in translation it comes across as "very German" in its concerns and method. (11) Habermas's principal focus in this text is the moral and political significance of prenatal genetic engineering or enhancement--as futuristic as it might be--which he argues could damage the affected person's relation to her body and thus jeopardize her autonomy. On the basis of these considerations, Habermas also argues against both the destruction of human embryos for stem cell research and PGD. According to Habermas, "the procedures of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and research on human embryonic stem cells demand the adoption of wide-working attitudes that tend to promote the transition from a negative to a positive eugenics," that is, from practices concerned with preventing the transmission of severely disabling conditions to practices aimed at optimizing a child's genetic makeup (158/96). (12) Thus, from his perspective, human embryonic stem cell research and PGD "would clear the path to a liberal eugenics," which would be distinguished from an old-style, authoritarian eugenics by a great measure of state neutrality, with parents enjoying a largely free hand in "the choice of the goals of character-modifying interventions" (122, 39/71, 19). Habermas is known for his contributions to liberal political theory. It has been his life's work to defend and justify liberal thought. So it should come as no surprise that Habermas is no friend of an authoritarian eugenics, but it may surprise some to discover he is also no friend of a liberal eugenics. Because of the risks he sees in prenatal genetic engineering or enhancement, Habermas submits that a society is warranted in erecting "[n]ormative barriers in dealing with embryos" in order to protect its "form of life" (122/71-72). …

Radio Vatican’s Opposition to Nazi Ideology, 1940-1942

Much has been published on the issue of Pius XII’s «silence» on the murder of European Jewry and its perpetrators. Critics claim that Pius XII never explicitly condemned the murder of the Jews nor named the perpetrators, whereas Pius XII’s supporters maintain that his words, though measured, were nevertheless clearly understood as a condemnation of Nazi ideology and antisemitism. Notwithstanding the interpretations which may be given to the Pope’s pronouncements, or the merits of his diplomatic activities, a defence of the papacy can however be advanced on the basis of an examination of some of Vatican Radio’s programs during 1940-1942. They show that Vatican Radio broadcasts not only consistently opposed any form of collaboration with Nazi ideology but also stood for the sanctity of human life regardless of descent by informing its listeners about the persecution and murder of the Jews.

Teaching in the "Schole of Christ": Law, Learning, and Love in Early Lollard Pacifism

In June, 1391, while in hiding after being charged with heresy, Leicester's notorious Wycliffite preacher, William Swinderby, wrote a letter to his accuser, the bishop of Hereford, John Trefnant, in which he retracted his earlier recantation and reiterated obstinately his unorthodox views on a whole range of doctrines then associated with early Lollardy. One of the most detailed of his arguments dealt with the legality of war, violence, and being at peace with others: For whereas Christ's law bids us to love our enemies, the pope's law gives us leave to hate them and to kill them, and grants men pardon to war against heathen men and to kill them. . . . Whereas Christ's law teaches peace, the pope with his law assails men for money and gathers priests and others to fight for his cause.1 Two years later, another Lollard, Walter Brut, said much the same when he declared before the bishop, Christ, the king of peace, savior of all humankind, came to save, not to condemn, and by giving the law of charity to the faithful, taught us to show respect, not anger, and not to hate our enemies. . .. But the Roman pontiff promotes wars and the killing of men in war... in exchange for earthly goods.2 These encounters, noted in most accounts of early Wycliffite activity, also prove to be two of the most revealing in ways not usually considered. The overt, passionate pacifism found in both Swinderby's and Brut's rhetoric usually has been either ignored or marginalized for its simple, naive ignorance which no one really took very seriously.3 Until recently, it was commonly held that since the first Lollards like Swinderby and Brut were largely uneducated, especially in the classics, they were unable to produce sophisticated responses to theological and philosophical issues, including contemporary just-war arguments as well as the reasons offered for their own persecution and harsh treatment.4 Today, this simplistic interpretation fortunately has been discredited for the most part. This study intends to lend such revisionism additional support by showing that many of the points raised in these years by Lollards, against wars and violence in favor of peace, reflect a surprising amount of knowledge, not just about classical just-war arguments or Wyclif 's dominion theory, but also about the political and religious environments in which they were raised. Both Swinderby and Brut used legal terminology in an attempt to contrast God's law with that of the Church or pope. It is more accurate in fact to argue that Lollards were constructing an alternative legal justification for peace that contrasted fundamentally with the just-war idea, and were insisting that this came from Christ himself, as the only truly legitimate authority. For Lollards understanding the law correctly was no small matter, and so it was imperative that people be taught the truth through biblical instruction rather than by adopting the specious reasoning of the schools. And since the Bible teaches peace based on a law of Christ, the heart of which was a love for others, then by preaching and writing, the truth can be communicated, confusion eliminated, and a sound basis for godly action put forth. Most of this article will be a consideration of how Lollards understood that law and then attempted to apply it. We will see that by breaking down the constituent elements of the simple principle that it is a Christian's duty to learn this divine law based in charity, Lollards offered a compelling counter-argument to the more scholastic and arcane teachings of the Church. In the context of tragic events unfolding before them, the Lollards used their knowledge of the Bible and Wyclifflan dominion theory to forge a consistent belief in the sanctity of human life that ecclesiastical authorities found quite threatening and secular powers seditious. Before looking at this pacifist language that appealed to a higher law, however, we might first develop a bit of the larger historical, philosophical, and discursive contexts which the Lollards were both consciously responding to and participating in. …

?Jewish Ethics? as an Argument in the Public Debate Over the Israeli Reaction to Palestinian Terror

S INCE THE BAR KOKHBA REVOLT (I32-135 C.E.) and eradication of any trace of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine, Jews have given little thought to questions of war. The long exile freed them from poignant moral dilemmas confronted by any polity that is compelled to use force to defend itself. Warfare, which has played such an essential role in world history, was seen by Jews as the craft of Esau-that is, a matter for gentiles-at least until such time as Messiah would come. Two generations ago, Rav Kook, greatest religious Zionist thinker, voiced view that exile had been a crucible, a necessary phase to prepare Jewish people for messianic redemption. The people of Israel, he argued, had abandoned sphere of world politics under duress that was partly also a matter of inner will, until happy time when a polity could be governed without wickedness or barbarism.' Zionism-namely movement to establish Jewish sovereignty and a Jewish military force-thus posed moral dilemmas for Jews that, for many generations, they had not had to confront. The Zionists had to devise new norms for use of force, but they did not begin with a clean slate. Zionist thought and literature were shaped by historical experience of Jews in modernity as much as by conscious or unconscious influence of Jewish tradition. Though Jewish tradition is not pacifist, there is no doubt that, during long exile, it had developed powerful bulwarks against blood shedding. I have especially in mind influence of prophetic literature and of halakhic legislation, both of which stressed sanctity of human life and strict prohibition against shedding blood of innocent people.

Culture of death: the assault on medical ethics in America

When his teenaged son Christopher, brain-damaged in an auto accident, developed a 106-degree fever following weeks of unconsciousness, John Campbell asked attending physician for help. The doctor refused. Why bother? The boy's life was effectively over. Campbell refused to accept this verdict. He demanded treatment and threatened legal action. The doctor finally relented. With treatment, Christopher's temperature subsided almost immediately. Soon afterwards he regained consciousness and today he learning to walk again. This story one of many Wesley J. Smith recounts in his groundbreaking new book, Culture of Death. Smith believes that American medicine is changing from a system based on sanctity of human life into a starkly utilitarian model in which medically defenseless are seen as having not just a 'right' but a 'duty' to die. Going behind current scenes of our health care system, he shows how doctors withdraw desired care based on Futile Care Theory rather than providing it as required by Hippocratic Oath. And how bioethicists influence policy by considering questions such as whether organs may be harvested from terminally ill and disabled. This a passionate, yet coolly reasoned book about current crisis in medical ethics by an author who has made the new thanatology his consuming interest.

Trust, sensitivities and science. Scientists, policy makers and representatives of interest groups met in Brussels to discuss the future of genetic research in Europe.

Biotechnology, driven by genome sequence analysis, is making ever greater strides in medical research. At the same time, however, many people feel threatened by these rapid developments and have raised objections against the further use of this technology. The public, particularly the consumer, feels excluded from the debate on how to apply the increasing store of knowledge in biology. Society wishes its views and opinions to be taken into account. To address this problem, the European Commission held a conference in Brussels from 6–7 November entitled ‘Genetics and the Future of Europe’. For the first time under the auspices of the EC, the stakeholders in the debate convened to do battle. > Interest groups welcomed scientific progress as a means to ease suffering, but remained surprisingly indifferent towards the needs of the poor It was clear that the sectors of society which are likely to benefit most from advances in genetics embrace the new technologies as a glimmer of hope. Indeed, despite lingering ethical considerations particularly about prenatal diagnosis, embryo selection or gene therapy, genetics‐derived technologies are largely viewed positively. However, not without reservations. Representatives of interest groups welcomed scientific progress as a means to ease the suffering of those they represent, but they remained surprisingly indifferent towards the needs of the poor in the third world. The debate on the use of human genetic information is largely about ethical arguments, and it is emotionally driven by a deep belief in the sanctity of human life. It is easy to make a case for the medical use of genetic information when it saves lives. A frequently used example is Adam Nash who was conceived, after prenatal selection, to have the same immunological make‐up as his elder sister Molly. …

Human Experimentation in Judaism

The supreme value of human life, the sanctity of human life, and the obligation of patients to accept standard efficacious medical therapy are axiomatic Judaic principles. If a seriously and/or terminally ill patient has already received all standard treatments and is asked to consider experimental therapy that may prolong his or her life or may hasten death, he or she is allowed but not required to accept the treatment. Healthy people may volunteer to participate in research studies that involve little or no risk.

Does the "sanctity of human life" doctrine sanctify humanness, or life?

No single principle is more critical to our ethical stance than the one asserting the sanctity of human life. In debates ranging from the care of anencephalic infants to the maintenance of fragile seniors, the question is, Where are the boundaries of sanctified human life? The generally accepted assumption is that a once firm set of principles and definitions is now eroding in the face of “new realities”—a generation's stunning scientific advance in medicine and medical technology. “There is no doubt,” Joam Graf Haber writes, for example, in a recent issue of Cambridge Quarterly, “that the miracles of medical technology have brought up ethical issues not contemplated by us until the very recent past.”

Biblical moral and religious principles in medical practice.

The Jewish religious and moral directives represent the accumulated wisdom and intellectual labours of millenia, stretching from the Talmud, the codes of Jewish law and their authoritative commentaries, to the most recent rabbinical responsa. All are inspired by the absolute Divine truths enshrined in the Bible, the eternal guide to Jewish conduct. They are founded on the concept of the supreme sanctity of human life and on the dignity of man as a creation in the Image of God.

Melanoma and the radiograph: sanctity of human life

Melanoma and the radiograph: sanctity of human life

The House Gun

A house gun, like a house cat: a fact of ordinary life, today. How else can you defend yourself against losing your hi-fi equipment, your TV set and computer? The respected Executive Director of an insurance company, Harald, and his doctor wife, Claudia, are faced with something that could never happen to them: their son, Duncan, has committed murder. What kind of loyalty do a mother and father owe a son who has committed the unimaginable horror? How could he have ignored the sanctity of human life? What have they done to influence his character; how have they failed him? Nadine Gordimer's new novel is a passionate narrative of the complex manifestations of that final test of human relations we call love - between lovers of all kinds, and parents and children. It moves with the restless pace of living itself; if it is a parable of present violence, it is also an affirmation of the will to reconciliation that starts where it must, between individual men and women.

The sanctity of human life: priority for Africa

The sanctity of human life: priority for Africa

'The Right to Die' by Russel Ogden: A Commentary

Russel Ogden has presented a case for legislation legalizing euthanasia, and buttressed it with a variety of supposed 'social benefits' emanating from this legalization. In the process he dismisses the concerns of opponents of euthanasia, particularly the 'slippery slope' argument which submits that once euthanasia is permitted, it will lead to involuntary euthanasia as well. And he provides a rather selective assessment of the entire aid-in-dying controversy. It is not possible in a short commentary such as this to discuss every issue that Ogden raises. I will endeavour, however, to point out a number of the grave weaknesses in his position and demonstrate that he himself has already slid down the slippery slope in his own thinking, apparently without even realizing it! His position is really quite frightening, based as it is on the view that some elite Board, appointed by the Minister of Health, and espousing the appropriate views of 'liberalism, and civil libertarianism' will have the final decision-making power over who is to live or not live. Ogden's position is even more frightening when we see the philosophy underlying it. Gone from his frame of reference is any regard for the validity of the principle of the sanctity of human life, which has undergirded our civilized society for many centuries. Instead, he rests his case on 'the principles of equality of justice, individual autonomy, and self-determination'; which he repeats three times in four pages, apparently to ensure the reader does not miss them. This is just another set of variants on the 'put yourself first,' 'please yourself,' 'if it feels good do it' philosophy that is so popular today, and yet so destructive of the very fabric of our society. It is a self-centred philosophy. And it is summarized in a paragraph on page 17 of Ogden's article, which to me is one of the saddest, most despairing paragraphs I have ever read. Let me reproduce it here so we can have another look at it:

American Ambivalence Towards Abortion Policy: Development of a Heteroskedastic Probit Model of Competing Values

Theory: Using elaboration-likelihood models and insights from the recent core beliefs literature, we show that conflicting core beliefs lead to ambivalence about policy choices. Hypotheses: Policy choices about abortion are heterogeneous. This heterogeneity across individuals is a function of the underlying conflict in their beliefs about the role of women and the sanctity of human life. Methods: A heteroskedastic probit model is developed to test the hypotheses. Results: Heterogeneity is observed for six of seven abortion policy choices; when core values conflict, respondents are more ambivalent in their policy responses and more difficult for our standard models to predict.

Thomas Merton and the Religion of the Bomb

In 1958, C. Wright Mills delivered his “Pagan Sermon to the Christian Clergy,” a piece in which he challenged American churches to consider their complicity in the coming of World War III. Mills complained that “the verbal Christian belief in the sanctity of human life… does not itself enter decisively into the plans now being readied for World War III.… Total war ought indeed be difficult for the Christian conscience to confront, but the Christian way out makes it easy; war is defended morally and Christians easily fall into line—as they are led to justify it—in each nation in terms of Christian faith itself.”