Do we use IVF because every woman should have the
opportunity or even the 'right' to birth a child?
Just to clarify, if we speak in terms of 'rights' that would
be in relation to other people, not before God. There are many who confuse this
point. Before God we have no 'rights' but that doesn't mean that in our human
to human relations or what we call 'society' that we can't expect some basic
rights. Otherwise society would have no foundation upon which it can be built.
Even an absolute monarchy is built on rights. It's just in that case the king
claims the prerogative. He says he has the right to ownership and a higher
standard of living. As far as your rights, they are given to you by him.
But what I'm meaning here is... if the technology is there,
in terms of a social contract, is that a right? If the means is available
should it be made universally available? Very few think so and yet how do we
determine that? How do we determine who gets what treatment? What treatments
(applications of technology) are universal?
Is IVF ethical to begin with?
If it's not, then why not? I would argue an affirmation of something
like IVF opens up a Pandora's Box of options and obligations. I don't think
anyone wants to go there.
If not, then what other biological functions which would be
considered 'normal' in a healthy person should also be reckoned outside the
scope of ethical medical treatment?
If IVF is wrong, then I have to question a larger set of
principles that guide medical ethics and the technology which make it all
possible.
Again, if it's okay to deny someone 'normal' physical
functions and say, you don't 'need' that (natural childbirth) and society isn't
obligated to make it available to all, then how do we apply that across the board?
Aren't we saying that though your condition may grieve you, your quality of
life is still sufficient that you can't place a moral and thus financial burden
on others to make the technology available to you?
What about Cochlear Implants? Gene therapy? Hormone
replacement?
Are all 'Quality of Life' issues invalid? Are some valid?
How do we tell?
Forget the costs. What about the bare ethics of these
procedures?
Does God open and close the womb or is that just a
generalized natural law and like gravity we can legitimately find ways to
overcome it?
IVF and cancer treatment are hard enough to consider, but
these are the stark examples. There are many more but for most of us we're far
too busy living our lives to even give them a second thought.
Returning to the young woman who wishes to die rather than
suffer a prolonged and terrible death, if she's lost, I cannot really blame
her. I wouldn't want that death either.
If she didn't want to die but had no health coverage, the
same people who are now criticizing her would happily turn her away and deny
her care. Is that not a death sentence? In many cases it is. It would seem
other social factors at this point seemingly trump the commitment to being
Pro-Life.
What if some simple inexpensive tests conducted every few
years would likely prevent many people from developing the disease in the first
place? Isn't denying them access in effect an indirect death sentence?
Why are we getting cancer? Why is it so prevalent? Does
anyone doubt that its escalation is the result of our technological innovations
and the resulting byproducts?
Is it not in some sense a man-made disease and condition? I
realize there were cancers before the industrial age but few dispute they've
increased exponentially since the advent of industrialisation.
But why do the same people who are gravely concerned about a
terminal woman using medical technology to end her life, then at the same time,
don't seem to care about technology that creates poisons that seemingly lead to
some of these very same fatal cancers? And they are most fatal among those who
have no access to the preventative technology. How is this pro-life?
What's the technological ethic? What's the difference? Is it
because she's knowingly and willingly taking her life?
If someone proves to you that the technology from a coal
fired power plant is killing people, will these same pro-life people start
picketing in order to save lives?
Somehow I don't think they will.
And don't get hung up on this point if you disagree with me
about coal. We can pick something else with ease. Even science is politicized
and that's true on both sides of the spectrum. Or should I say that technology
has a political element?
But assuming the coal power plant argument for a moment...
When you turn your lights on, or turn your furnace up,
aren't you slowly killing yourself and others as well? Ah, but that's long
term.
Does the tempo of suicide make a difference? What about the
morbidly obese people in many Southern Baptist congregations? Aren't they
killing themselves too? Does it have to be a deliberate act to make it wrong? Perhaps
these obese people are not willingly committing suicide, but at the same time
they 'willingly' refuse to change their lifestyles... which incidentally are a
result of technological changes to society. Isn't their refusal to change their
habits a sort of defiance akin to what this girl is expressing? Is she just
being more honest and consistent? Aren't many of us 'taking control' of our
lives too?
Our technology solves problems and creates them. It destroys
life and gives it.
Due to technology, it would seem the whole nature of the
discussion has changed.
If a person is going to die anyway, why do we consider it
ethical to prolong their life... even though it is an act of futility?
But it's wrong to alleviate suffering?
Who decides at what point the suffering is sufficient to
warrant medical intervention or the cessation of intervention... thus
acknowledging death?
This young woman says that she and not the doctor or the
state should decide.
Ah, that re-frames the whole question once again. In many
ways this is the real issue here. But that's not something the Christian
community wants to talk about. At this point, they are anything but 'Small
Government'. She is indeed going to die. Who decides how much technology should
intervene or how it should intervene?
It's interesting that most Christians in this case want the
state and the doctor to wield the power over the individual.
But isn't that precisely the issue we faced over the passage
of Health Care Reform?
The Utilitarian and Libertarian say why should I pay for
someone else? Why should someone else intervene or prevent me from doing what I
think best when I'm not harming anyone else? In many ways it comes down to
freedom. If we want a free society, then we're going to have to let sinners
sin. Forcing them to be hypocrites and behave like Christians won't save them
and in the long run and doesn't help the Church or society either. I realize
many won't agree with that last statement but history proves it. In the end
there's simply a terrible backlash. We've been watching it happen for the past
several hundred years.
But most of us would agree that we should pay for others who
cannot pay for themselves... to help prolong their lives, right?
These are not easy questions. Don't think that they ever
are. Those that are oversimplifying them are doing so because in the end they
don't care about the actual issues.
Their motives are political and instead of trying to help
you understand they are trying to market a political product to you. They of
all people involved are the most insincere and least truthful.
We see this when in the context of the discussion regarding
this young woman they start talking about Nazis and Euthanasia as social
policy. That's a real danger that we must always guard against. Some might say
that under a Capitalist medical system it's already been policy for some time.
She's not a handicapped or disabled person being euthanized
because of her lack of profitability for the larger society. That's not the
issue here. Those who argue thus are insincere.
As far as the issue of doctors and oaths, that all went out
the window when medicine became something motivated by profit. The ethic of 'Do
no harm' can't function in a Capitalist context. This is only exacerbated by
medical treatment in a technological age. To raise this point today is to
simply flaunt one's own ignorance of the past century in terms of society,
economics, technology and medicine. Those who raise it are also largely
insincere.
Don't listen to them.
In the meantime we'll pray for this young woman, that she
doesn't end her life prematurely and yet it would seem that regardless her time
is at an end. If she's lost, that final sin won't really make much of a
difference.
Suicide is indeed a sin but I wonder sometimes if we also
err in how we use technology to keep people alive. I know of a cancer patient
who was completely maddened by the pain and the suffering. He killed himself.
He was a pastor in a Reformed denomination.
I have to say what he did was wrong but I won't say that it
is a simple and always straightforward issue.
With regard to the young woman, rather than fight her
politically we might do better to wield the Gospel. That might get the desired
result... or perhaps not.
I am against assisted suicide, IVF and much else but I don't
like how the issues are framed and I find most of the discussion to be
unhelpful and failing to address the serious issues. Perhaps it's because there
are no easy answers if any at all. This is often the reality of life in a
fallen world.
* I wrote this a couple of weeks before she committed suicide but didn't publish it. She's gone now, but the issues remain.
* I wrote this a couple of weeks before she committed suicide but didn't publish it. She's gone now, but the issues remain.