The idea that that problems in biomedical ethics cannot be solved by secular theories but can only be assessed in terms of the assumption that the universal foundation of ethics and values (if such an ideology could exist) is the word of God is flawed on a number of levels. While one cannot discount the value of religious ideology and common moral stances as valid factors in biomedical ethics, it would be a mistake to rely on these solely. One of the most important reasons why this would be a mistake is because there is no existing “universal” concept of the word of God. Different cultures, religions, and individuals have varying understandings of who and what god is, thus to codify what God thinks is and use it as a standard is an absurd notion. Related to this is the idea that the word of God is not something that is concrete, especially when thought of in the context of world religions and thought. To try to ascertain a cross-cultural notion of God that can be applied universally is impossible and would inevitably limit or leave out a wide range of differing philosophies. To further complicate the issue is the question of, even if there were a universal understanding of God’s wishes that could be agreed upon by all, is the question of how the word of God should be interpreted.
It would be possible to form a sentence which was the synthesis of every world religion but that would not solve anything since there would be any number of possible interpretations. Also of importance is the matter of empirical data and evidence versus ethereal claims. Doctors and medical professionals can see with their own eyes the benefits of medical procedures whereas depending on words of a God that may or may not exist offers no guarantee. As a result of religion, many will remain ill or die. This debate is best explored by the current tensions surrounding the right to die and the debate about assisted suicide will form the main example in this examination. Other issues also arise, such as what role humans have in the medical arena and how the idea that humans are “playing god” should be handled. There are no concrete answers to be given, but rather this is an assessment of the many ways in which the idea of judging ethics based on a universal understanding is inherently flawed. In sum, medicine is a secular enterprise and thus trying to evaluate its practice guided only by abstract moral and religious reasoning would be a mistake, even if a unified and universal standard of God’s word could be formulated and agreed upon across cultures.
One of the most glaring problems with basing biomedical ethics on the universal word of God is that no such thing exists. Although nearly all world cultures posses religions, not all of them are monotheistic and certainly not all of them have the same conception of God’s word. What might be acceptable under one tenant of a religion is not under another. Generally speaking, when one hears the term “God’s word” the Christian and biblical notion of God comes to mind, but this is a very limited perspective as the word of God for Muslims differs significantly. Saying that there could be a universal word of God would be impossible and given the course of history (in terms of the lack of agreement between religions and what God and his word should mean) it does not appear that there will be agreement anytime soon. It would require volumes of research to examine the world’s individual and collective religions and then attempt to synchronize them in a meaningful way and besides, there is no guarantee that whatever conclusion might be reached would have any bearing on biomedical ethics. In addition to different religious and cultural standards stemming from an overarching morality, the codes by which medical professionals operate differ as well. For example, “Jewish and Islamic doctors as well as those in East Asia and the Indian subcontinent possess traditions of medical ethics that are intertwined with Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Shintoism and Hinduism” (Kuhse 2001). With so much variance within a similar cultural system is present, the task of deciding on a confirmed “word of God” amongst these would be impossible, especially since they are blends of ancient, modern, monotheistic, and deity-worshipping religious natures. If one were to add the basic tenants of Islam and Christianity this would become even more of a mess, philosophically speaking. While this is the fundamental and underlying problem with saying that medical ethics should follow along a “universal line” there are even more problems that would arise if, theoretically speaking, such an agreement about the word of God could be made.
Another problem with using the “word of God” as the basis for addressing issues of biomedical ethics is that there is a tension between the empirical versus ethereal. There is no way to make an informed choice about a particular course of action. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that the word of God had been generally agreed upon and it adhered to some of the more basic ideas of many religions. Now, let us suggest that the official word of God on issues relating to biomedical ethics was “take care of one another and do not commit murder. Do everything in your power to help you fellow human being.” This only leads to increasingly more complex questions, most notably, “does God want us to keep someone from dying or is it more important for us not to commit murder?”… This leads to even more potent questions such as what murder is if it’s done in a way that respects a unified notion of God’s word. One of the best cases to illustrate this point is the debate about the right to die or physician-assisted suicide. It is often asserted that by taking the life of terminally ill patients is “playing God” and that only God can decide when a person dies. “The ‘playing God’ argument has some arbitrary features, making it difficult to either attack or defend. In other words, it is very difficult to determine where the line should be drawn between permissible actions of making the world better and unjustifiable intrusion into God’s territory” (Szebik 2001). Secular theorists maintain that assisted suicide should be a right granted to all citizens who are suffering from a degenerative, painful, or fatal condition that would cause them to be unable to enjoy their lives as healthy people do. They contend that although there are certainly several debates against this viewpoint, it is not up to ethicists to make decisions that infringe upon the rights of the ill and infirm. Instead, they feel it should be recognized that “patients have a right to make their own decisions to preserve free choice and human dignity: this right includes the right to choose assisted suicide” (Ersek 48). Furthermore, having access to physician-assisted suicide allows the patient to maintain control over his or her situation and to end life in an ethical and merciful manner, which would fall under the guidelines of god’s, supposed word to take care of fellow human beings. There is no way to make an empirical decision in bioethics if the word of God is involved and it seems the two cannot be together in the same realm.
Let us extend the example of assisted suicide further to emphasize the point about religious values and a “word of god” versus the benefits (which are provable through science and observation) of biomedical procedures and practices. While on a worldwide level there is no unified “word of God” to rely on or adequately follow, in particular countries, there is more or less a standard and widely-accepted notion of God’s word. For example, in America, for many, the most potent argument against physician-assisted suicide is not based solely on more empirically-centered questions such as the role and duties of the medical establishment, but rather on more vague notions of morality and religious doctrine. In America, for example, where the “word of God” is more or less codified by Christian ideology, “The states cannot legislate on the basis on religious faith but they can legislate on ethical grounds. They may reasonably conclude that the legalization of assisted suicide would dangerously corrode society’s moral fabric” (Marsh 4). These opponents refer to the bible and Christian tradition’s understanding of suicide and murder as grave sins. Furthermore, many of the religious groups claim to hold all life as sacred and by taking a life, even though it may ease someone’s pain, is not an acceptable act in the eyes of God or within Christian tradition. Like other debates, stem-cell research in particular, the concept of life is God’s gift and despite any political or social claims we have to personal freedom, such freedoms are trumped by ethics, morality, and religious belief. The right to die with dignity is trumped by the need to adhere to religious code and although one cannot criticize individual belief, it should be noted that the benefits of seeing someone die (who might have committed suicide anyway) with peace and grace is also something that is, in some ways, holy and justified. Again, even with a more or less agreed-upon notion of an overriding “word of God” questions involving biomedical ethics cannot be resolved as there is always going to be tension between what god really wants and what is empirically demonstrated through medical practice. In sum, this debate is so complex because the core values of each side are rooted in two entirely different areas. Those who approve of physician-assisted suicide are more likely to support their ideas with comments about individual freedom and dying with dignity as a release from great pain while those on the other side use more ethereal and spiritual arguments. In general, it seems more reasonable to base our decisions about this practice on more empirical matters such as the right of the individual in deciding not to suffer rather more philosophical questions about religious doctrine and code that is different depending on culture, region, and individual preference. While this is not to say that religion has no place in the debate, it must be understood that many patients with chronic conditions are suffering greatly without the possibility of a guaranteed form of relief. Even though there should certainly be a vast amount of regulation in terms of physician-assisted suicide (in terms of consent especially) we should let the experiences of those suffering decide the next course of action rather than more vague ethical and religious notions. This is a difficult point to make without seeming insensitive to the needs and beliefs of religious groups but when viewed as a whole, physician-assisted suicide offers great relief to those suffering. The rights of the individual to die with dignity and not suffer undue pain or hardship are of the utmost concern and should be realized by the public, the medical community, and groups with ethical concerns based on an unreliable set of religious “truths” that are not grounded in anything besides mere speculation.
Because of the complexity of identifying one true meaning and answer as to what the word of God really is, relying it solely as the basis for biomedical decisions would be a complete fallacy. In addition, it complicates the roles doctors and researchers play, especially when their goal is to help people live their lives without pain—something that seems, ethically speaking, without challenge. There is the added problem, if religious factors were the main determinant of the future of biomedical ethics, of empirical data. It is clear that people are being helped or could be helped by certain procedures, and this could occur if it were not for opposition rooted in unempirical methods of decision making. While this may seem to be a limiting concept, it seems that science and medicine, as secular entities, should not be governed by non-secular principles. While ethical concerns should probably guide the initial debates and decisions, they should in no way influence the whole field.
Other essays and articles in the Main Archives related to this topic include : The Medical, Social and Economic Benefits of Genetic Engineering • The Multifaceted Argument for Advancing Stem Cell Research • Right to Die Issues : Rationality over Religio • A Reasoned Approach to Medical Marijuana and the Law • The Positive Aspects of Physician Assisted Suicide • Argument in Favor of the Use of Animal Research • The Questionable Effect of Abortion of the Mental Health of Women
Works Cited
Ersek, Mary. “Assisted Suicide: Unraveling a complex issue.” Nursing 35.4 (2005): 48.
Kuhse, Helga ed. Peter Singer. (2001). A Companion to Bioethics: Blackwell Companions to Philosophy. New York: Blackwell Publishing.
Marsh. “At the Hour of Death.” America 193.16 (2005): 4.
Szebik I. (2001). Ethical issues of human germ-cell therapy: a preparation for public discussion.Academic Medicine: Journal Of The Association Of American Medical Colleges, 76(1), 32.
