In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

APPENDIX B Samples of Tim’s Essays Here are two essays Tim wrote in his freshman year of college: one, a textual analysis of an article by an ethicist, written for Freshman Writing, and the other, a historical essay interpreting events and texts for a western civilization course, also Tim’s first year at the university. RIGHT AND WR O N G I N G EN ETI C EN G I N EER ING: A CHR IST IAN’S PERSPECTIVE (FO R EG L 102) The last decade’s discoveries in genetic science have opened discussions at the dinner table, laboratory, and Congress on questions that ten years ago existed solely on the pages of science fiction. Their relevance is now real, casting confusion over the decisions of birth, illness, treatment, and death. Is it morally justified, many ask, to read a fetus’ genetic code, allowing the parents to abort a handicapped child? Is it right to consider altering the DNA, the very map of life? Isn’t the integrity of life threatened by manipulating genetic traits? Answers given to questions of right and wrong in genetic therapy range widely. Many fear that people who altered the genetic makeup of individuals would be “playing God.” Other invoke the experience of the Nazi era in Germany and oppose any development of gene-altering processes, concerned that it will lead to similar atrocities. Still others suggest that any new technology that is useful should be put into practice. Dr. Lewis Bird, professor at Eastern College, where he teaches medical ethics, responds to these solutions with a different framework. As the Eastern Regional Director of the Christian Medical and Dental Society, Dr. Bird has had the opportunity to spend a great deal of effort investigating the complexities of genetic research, testing, and therapy. In an article for the Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith quarterly, he answers those afraid of “playing God” by pointing out that taking antibodies for a sore throat also intervenes in the natural progression of human life. If it is justifiable to heal by performing invasive surgery with a knife or laser, to halt the spread of illness by administering antibodies, and so on, then it is likewise acceptable to use genetic technology. This solution is acceptable to many people, but it leaves at least two questions: First of all, as those sympathetic with Christian Scientist and Amish persuasions would ask, are modern medicine’s techniques acceptable at all? Secondly, some wonder, doesn’t genetic technology’s deeper penetration into the fabric of human life set it apart from other forms of medical treatment? 208 COLLEGE WRITING AND BEYOND Dr. Bird also allays the concern that genetic engineering will lead to abuses similar to those of Nazi Germany’s medical community. There is no basis, he believes, for the assertion that use of genetic technology will inevitably lead to atrocities offensive to respect for human nature. Certainly, some crackpot in an unregulated laboratory may take it into his head to perform some evil deed, but he could just as well cause harm to people by using widely accepted technologies such as the surgeon’s scalpel or the radiologist’s X-ray. Dr. Bird recognizes the risk of powerful technologies like genetic therapy and recommends using caution and supervision to ensure the proper use of genetic engineering. To those who think “if it can be done, it should be done,” Dr. Bird has a simple response: Not necessarily. For him, if it can be done, it may be done. How to decide? To lay out a map for determining the path of ethical medical practice, he researched both the Eastern and Western traditions for common, universal principles of medical ethics and found five that relate to genetic engineering. First of all, we must do no harm. This Dr. Bird derives from the Confucian Silver Rule: “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” Because there is the chance that someone may disregard the harm done to patients of genetic treatments, he urges thorough regulation and caution in approving genetic therapy techniques. Geneticists must honor the sanctity of human life taken from the belief that man was created in the image of God. At each step, we must ask, “Does this process ultimately enhance or degrade human dignity?” The answer will direct our steps. God as known in the Old and New Testament does not require a “hands-off” policy, Dr. Bird believes, but we must...

Share