Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

ZZ    Should man be dabbling with medicine or should we just let "God's will
ZZ    be done"?
  
Jesus spit in mud and used it to make the blind man see.  Medicine is a gift 
from God and should be used.
  
ZZ    Should man be playing around with human genetics?
  
Not if it means the disruption of life or the forfeit of life from somebody 
else.  Otherwise, I'm all for it.
  
ZZ    How charitable should a Christian be when it comes to contributing to
ZZ    medical research?  How about giving to the medical care of the indigent?
  
Find out which medical facility, etc. aligns with what you believe is in the 
same interest you have, then give as God lead you.
  
ZZ    What about physician assisted suicide?
  
No. This isn't a physicians purpose. 
  
ZZ    Organ transplantation anyone?
  
Absolutely.  Contrary to belief, this is not an unscriptural practice.  
    
    
    
    

    Re .1
    
    If medecine is a gift from God, what's disease?  Did it come from God
    as well?
    
    >> Not if it means the disruption of life 
    
    Gene therapy disrupts in a positive way.  But beyond that, if medical
    science gets to the point where they can actually manipulate the genes
    of an egg and/or sperm in an effort to design in/out selected traits
    for a "would be" human being, should that sort of thing be allowed?
    Who decides what traits should be promoted or discouraged?
    
    >> No. This isn't a physicians purpose.
    I agree.  But some would argue that part of their purpose is to reduce
    suffering.  I don't expect many who read this conference will side with
    suicide.
    
    
    
    Another up and coming area of medical research is the study and
    amnipulation of the human brain.  Researchers have been able to map
    physical areas of the brain to the various senses, emotions, memory,
    cognition, etc... . They've also learned a great deal about how brain 
    chemistry and nerve function work together to manifest certain mental
    conditions like depression, multiple personalities, schizophrenia,
    etc... .  Genetically "designing-in" behaviors and personality traits
    may well become possible in our lifetimes!  Should we "tamper" with
    procreation in that way?  Should we practice a form of medecine which 
    could (for example) strip away a convicted felon's ABILITY to become 
    violent using a drug or surgery?
    
    
    -dave
    
    

>    Should man be dabbling with medicine or should we just let "God's will
>    be done"?
    
    God gave us a brain to use.  If you are sick, you should take medicine
    as well as pray for God's will.
    
>    Should man be playing around with human genetics?
    
    No.
    
>    How charitable should a Christian be when it comes to contributing to
>    medical research?  How about giving to the medical care of the indigent?
    
    Depends on what kind of research.  I see no problem with helping the
    needy with medical care.
    
>    What about physician assisted suicide?
    
    No.
    
>    Organ transplantation anyone?
    
    No problem with this.
    
    Mike

    As far as genetics, I was hedging on the use of fetal tissue but I am
    trying to avoid the subject as you asked.  I believe if anybody wants
    to donate their genetic makeup, then it should be their decision.
    
    I believe eugenics is a dangerous power to give to human beings.  I
    believe it can be used to cure, but it can also be used to propogate a
    master race and I don't think any of us would want that!
    
    -Jack

    Re .4
    
    As you said, genetic manipulation and eugenics has great potential to
    be used in positive ways... and in the negative as well.  It's sort of
    like using nuclear technology in that way.  But if the 'ability' to use 
    the technology for what we may consider 'evil' exists, you can bet that
    someone will exploit the technology for their own gain. 
    
    Should we put a stop to this sort of thing before it begins?  Should
    we halt and disallow medical research in this area as some might say we
    should have halted nuclear research back in the 40's?
    
    And what about the middle ground?  I mean is there anything wrong with 
    young Mr. & Mrs. Smith paging through a catalog of traits they want to 
    give their yet-to-be-concieved baby?  Is it immoral to chemically
    castrate a convicted rapist?  Where do we draw the line?  What do we
    use as a guide?
    
    Back to religion. Does established doctrine speak to any of this...
    even remotely?  Does the Bible warn against or encourage "shaping"
    children?  If it's our mission to raise our children to behave as
    directed in the New Testament, would a christian be doing his
    yet-to-be-concieved baby a favor by predisposing him/her to be a
    pascifist?  (Removing a person's ability to become violent via surgery 
    is current technology BTW)
    
    I read a book a couple years ago called "Molecules of the Mind" which
    addressed this stuff in god detail.  It mentioned that the technology 
    has progressed far beyond what is currently believed.  There is currently
    no movement to control, direct or regulate it's development or use.
    Finally, the book warned of the huge social impact the technology WILL
    have and suggests that we, society, get involved ASAP!
    
    
    -dave

Related topics:

Note 1056.0  "genetic engineering and christianity"

Note 383.0  "Access to Health Care"

Shalom,
Richard

    I heard on NPR this morning that one of Kavorkian's (sp) "patients"
    was healthy after all!  She (the woman who was "dispatched") had breast
    cancer in the past and was treated for it.  Apparently she didn't know 
    that the cancer was erradicated, call the good Doctor, toked on CO for a 
    while and went off to meet her maker.  The autopsy showed no trace of 
    cancer in her body.
    
    Hmmmmm.......

 Kavorkian should have been put in jail a long time ago.  Perhaps this
 case will put him there.




 Jim

    I wonder if he could be sued for malpractice? 
    
    But in a larger sense, we live in a society which allows people to
    "dispatch" others based merely on "choice".  What makes suicide that
    much different?  I mean if we allow abortion, should we be so
    hypocritical as to disallow suicide (as if someone who commits the
    "crime" has to worry about legal recourse).
    
    -dave
    
    

    Another "medical ethic" (addressed back in note 340, in 1991) is the
    whole euthanasia question.  I searched for notes on "Kavorkian" and
    "Suicide" and found nothing, so here we go.
    
    I suppose there are two ethical levels to address, the social ethic and
    the religious.  Should society try to prevent suicide?  (I happen to
    believe so but can see the strength in the opposing view).  I mean this
    is a country of liberties, right?  If a suicide does not interfere
    with the rest of society, who's business is it but your own?
    
    And on the religious level?  I'm sure there must be something in the
    Bible which speaks down on suicide, but if someone could post the
    specific passage, that'd be great.  The "Golden Rule" (do onto
    others...) addresses how you should act and feel toward others but does
    not speak to how you should act toward yourself.  Is there the
    hypothetical case where it would be the "christian" thing to do? Let me
    try (always playing the devil's advocate ;-) )
    
    John Doe is dying of something-or-other.  It's terminal, he's got a few
    weeks left "at best" (or so he's told), and he's in the hospital,
    paying for the $5000/day stay "out-of-pocket" because he has no health
    insurance.  He doesn't have the money.  Neither does his wife and 5
    young children. They're elready in debt, living in or near poverty, and
    really don't need to run up a huge hospital bill.  Should...
    
    a) John call Dr. Kavorkian
    b) Stay in the hospital and let his family worry about the tab
    c) Go home and die
    d) buy a huge life insurance policy on false pretenses
    e) hope for a miracle
    
    If I was in John's shoes, I hope I'd have the stregth to opt for "c"
    
    
    One more thing... "There is no greater act of love than someone laying
    down his own life for another".  Would suicide be ethically justified 
    if it were the means to these ends?
    
    -dave
    
    

    Just to keep things on track, and my opinions about Kevorkian
    notwithstanding.
    
    There are medical records from the state of California which state that
    CT Scans showed bone deterioration consistant with metastatic bonce
    cancer.  The Medical Examinier in Michigan has not checked the bones,
    just lymph nodes and other organs, at this point.  Bone marrow
    destruction is extremely painful, even before the tumors start breaking
    through the outer bones to show up.  Metastatic Cancer doesn't follow
    any  particular path and can hit bones long before spreading
    throughout other organs.  
    
    meg

    The doctor said that it would have spread to the lymph nodes and/or 
    other organs before it went anywhere else.  He said that he didn't go 
    into the brain, etc... for that reason.  I dunno, I'm just an engineer. 
    
    But in a larger sense, if this woman wanted to die, for WHATEVER
    reason, how should we address that?  Should that be treated like mental
    illness?  
    
    -dave

    dave,
    
    given that my father's metastatic cance went for the bones first,
    according to scans, and only later hit the bladder, lungs, heart,
    stomach, kidneys, I doubt that the ME in Michigan is an oncologist.  
    
    Dad was scanned every couple of months and they were looking for a
    cancer they could actually do something about, (another story about why
    not prolonging a death is sometimes the right thing to do.)  while his
    hip joints and upper arm bones were riddled with tumors from prostate
    cancer, it was only the microscopic exam that showed the heart and lung
    and lymph involvement.
    
    meg