No easy answers when ethics are involved

MICHELE MARR

Several weeks ago I audited a class, “Bioethics: The New Dilemmas in

Scientific Breakthroughs,” taught by Scott Rae, professor of biblical

studies and Christian ethics at Biola University in La Mirada.

While writing a feature story earlier this year about a lecture

series designed to teach Christians how to discuss their worldview in

an informed, articulate and gracious way, I interviewed Rae, who

holds a doctorate in social ethics from the University of Southern

California.

As I spoke to him, he was so obviously knowledgeable and also

passionate about the ethical quandaries we face amid the promise and

hope offered to us through accessible and emerging scientific and

medical technology, I couldn’t pass up the chance to hear Rae lecture

for roughly 18 hours on topics that included abortion; stem cell

research; physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, care of the dying;

technologically assisted reproduction, prenatal genetic testing and

human cloning.

The class, it turned out, was highly interactive as Rae presented

us with case studies to discuss drawn from his experience as an

expert and advisor among faith and medical communities.

Rae let us cut our teeth on a relatively-speaking, simple dilemma:

A man in his late 20s is brought into a hospital emergency room after

being hit by a car while riding his bicycle. The man is married, the

father of three young children. He has bleeding on the brain, which a

physician assesses surgery can assuage with an excellent prognosis

for a complete recovery.

The surgery, however, requires a blood transfusion for which the

man’s wife, with her husband unconscious, refuses to give permission,

based on religious grounds. Without the surgery, and barring a real

miracle, the man is certain to die. It’s only a matter of time.

Our task, in small groups, is to decide what we would do if we

were in the doctor’s shoes. Would we simply offer the young man

palliative care and allow him to die, leaving a young widow and three

fatherless children? Would we do the surgery, giving the husband and

father the transfusion he needs without informing his wife? Or would

we attempt to get a court order to authorize the needed transfusion

over the will, and the religious convictions, of the man’s wife,

knowing that we might then alienate her, causing her to remove her

husband from the hospital’s care leaving him to die, possibly without

even palliative care?

After lengthy, spirited discussions, we could not, as a group --

each one of us Christians with common moral tenets and values --

reach a definitive decision. In life, where often those involved are

not arguing from the same religious or philosophical base, someone

ultimately must.

It’s hard, said Rae, because “there is no clear, straightforward

answer. That’s why we call them dilemmas.”

They are dilemmas because they put at least two, and often more,

deeply held values in conflict. In this case respect for religious

liberty, the sanctity and unnecessary loss of human life and the

physician’s commitment to the well-being of his patient tangled.

As the class continued, the dilemmas became increasing complex and

difficult. It was humbling to remember that behind these dilemmas

real people lived and, sometimes, died. They were not anonymous

hypotheses and the solutions could not be either. They called for

wisdom and integrity but also, like the Hippocratic oath, for

“warmth, sympathy, and understanding,” for those whose lives are

burdened by them.

I came away from Rae’s class not feeling the wiser for answers to

tough questions gained but with a deeper appreciation for what we as

individuals and as a society face in our often-called “brave new

world” and a nagging sense that it might be time to revisit Aldous

Huxley’s book that gives rise, with foreboding, to that name.

Rae didn’t give us answers and I don’t think he meant to. He gave

us tools: a seven-step model for attempting to make ethical

decisions, a beginner’s bibliography of books on bioethics, among

them Leon R. Kass’ book, “Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity:

The Challenge of Bioethics, and a web site (The Center for Bioethics

and Human Dignity’s cbhd.org) devoted to its contemporary issues.

His seven-step model brings the elements of a dilemma and its

possible resolutions into focus: gather the facts; determine the

ethical issues; discern the relevant principles; list the

alternatives; compare the alternatives in light of the principles;

assess the consequences; and decide.

The model doesn’t make such decisions easy, especially in a

pluralistic society such as ours, but it does begin to make them

reasoned, and possible, in a world that faces them more and more

every day.

In his book, physician and biochemist Kass writes, “Human nature

itself lies on the operating table, ready for alteration, for eugenic

and psychic ‘enhancement,’ for wholesale redesign...new creators are

confidently amassing their powers and quietly honing their skills.

For anyone who cares about preserving our humanity, the time has come

for paying attention.”

I hope each one of us, and our faith communities, are listening.

* MICHELE MARR is a freelance writer from Huntington Beach. She

can be reached at [email protected].