[1] 1. Biotechnology develops in cultural contexts, and not in isolation in the laboratory. At first glance, the driving forces behind biotechnology are the hard sciences: biological and medical research, new technologies and the interest in making a profit in an expanding sector of the economy: health care. But these developments have consequences that go far beyond the laboratory. New findings have an impact on how we understand ourselves as human beings and on how we live together. Technological developments compel us to reflect deeply on our understanding of ourselves and on our world views because there is no direct way to deduce social meaning from the biological structures of embryonic or fetal tissue.
[2] It is this cultural dimension - usually framed as 'moral consequences' - that is usually the starting point of the controversies. To give an example, Stanford University's announcement in 2002 that it was launching an ambitious Cancer/Stem-Institute led by top researchers such as Irving Weissman drew immediate criticism. There were suspicions that the Stanford researchers were planning to use nuclear transplantation techniques. Leon R. Kass, chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, condemned the university, saying: "Stanford has decided to proceed with cloning research without public scrutiny or deliberation, and has hurt the cause of public understanding on this subject by its confusion on the issue" (the distinction between therapeutic and reproductive cloning). A commentator wrote: "The backlash (against Stanford) is a hard lesson in the realities of the stem-cell debate. Science, religion, politics and ideology swirl around in a stew of competing arguments about the responsibilities and the dangers of using embryonic stem cells."1
[3] The example demonstrates that those who are not sufficiently aware that biotechnology develops within a cultural context can quickly run into trouble. The primary task of ethics is more hermeneutical than normative. Ethics is the analysis of the ingredients of this stew and of how it is cooked. Hermeneutical competence is essential in ethics because proposals for action are deeply rooted in our interpretation of what 'is'.2
[4] When it comes to assessing the risks and benefits of biotechnology, the tools of hard science don't help much. The future is notoriously incalculable. It is no wonder that stem-cell researchers, who use the same tools as those used in the natural sciences, arrive at very different interpretations of the predictable consequences for the future of society.
[5] The national legislation governing human embryonic stem cell
research (whether these exist or not, whether they are more
permissive but strictly regulated as in Britain, or very
restrictive as in Germany) illustrate well the impact of cultural
differences. Legal regulations and moral rules are not identical,
but they are connected more than liberal law professors working on
the basis of strong secularization theories are willing to accept.
The distinctions and the connections between the ethos of
communities and their laws should become a more important topic in
bioethics.
[6] All national legislation is rooted in the ethical and religious
cultures of the countries in question. In Europe countries differ
greatly depending on whether they have Roman Catholic or Protestant
majorities. Some cultures are more receptive and open to new
technologies than others, and some cultures are more sensitive to
the possible risks and failures of new technologies than to the
benefits.3 The
ways in which western democracies deal with questions of trust
versus mistrust, certainty versus uncertainty, political compromise
versus clear and definite moral positions are clearly distinct, as
shown by recent bioethical debates. As recently as December 2003,
for example, the European Union failed in attempt to formulate a
set of rules on financing embryonic research projects with
community funds that were acceptable to all member states.
[7] 2. Distinctive types or forms of knowledge play a part in these
ethical controversies, i.e: scientific knowledge, belief systems,
orientational knowledge (Orientierungswissen), historical memory,
prudence and wisdom. One type of knowledge cannot be reduced to
another and neat divisions between rational and irrational or
knowledge and belief no longer help to understand the discussions.
Even hard sciences, as such, have to be understood as intepretive
practices that are shaped by cultural patterns and specific
image-worlds. Research in the history of science and in cultural
studies shows that the natural sciences themselves are based on
assumptions and values of a specific culture, that they are part of
the social construction of reality and therefore cannot claim to
produce objective knowledge that is independent of social
contexts.
[8] The cultural dimension matters, and religion also matters
because the two are closely intertwined. Even for people living in
the so-called secularized countries of the western world, disease
and health, birth and death are more than objective data. We need
languages other than just the scientific explanatory language -
symbols, images, narratives and rites - to be able to conduct our
lives as human beings. Life and death, disease and health have
always been central topics in religious communication. Insofar as
theology is a reflection on religious communication, these topics
also play a central role in theology.
[9] There is a reason why theologians such as Paul Ramsey and
Joseph Fletcher played a pioneering role in the early phase of the
research that today falls into the category of
bioethics.4
Ramsey was also important in the establishment of the Kennedy
Institute at Georgetown. Today medicine and biology define and
redefine our understanding of these phenomena. Rather than solving
them, the ever-growing discussion about medical ethics and
bioethics indicates that there are other dimensions (for example:
the meaning of disease in someone's personal history) that cannot
be ignored if we want to approach problems reasonably.
[10] The nature of suffering is not something we can grasp
adequately with the objectivizing mode of natural sciences alone.
To deal with this problem, we need, as Eric J. Cassell wrote: "an
enlarged view of knowledge."5 As the history of modern
medicine shows, the natural science approach has been very
successful in this area, but it has also placed limitations on
understanding. Byron J. Good from Harvard Medical School addressed
this problem and used E. Cassierer's theory of symbolization as one
pillar for a broader understanding of knowledge in his Medicine,
Rationality and Experience.6 Good analyzed the processes
whereby knowledge is formed, the interpretive activities in today's
medicine, and demonstrated the rationality of other modes a person
might use to express the meaning of disease, eg: the narrative
representation.
[11] Bioethics is not only a field where secularization theories
occur, it is also a field where the religious dimension is
ultimately difficult to ignore and theologians may have to
contribute their experience in dealing with knowledge formation.
Raanan Gillon (Imperial College, London) acknowledged the religious
approaches to bioethics in the Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics: "At
their best, religions offer a firm grounding of firmly established
positive general ethical stances in which people are educated to
have clear and substantial general and specific ethical obligations
whose fulfillment is a religious duty…indeed, bioethicists
of different faiths may sigh wearily, even impatiently, as they see
many of the wheels of bioethics being laboriously and separately
reinvented by contemporary secular thinkers."7
[12] We are only at the beginning of a process to develop more
differentiated conceptual frameworks that enable us to analyze and
better understand the complex cultural dimensions of such
processes. This development must be interdisciplinary. So any
claims to 'truth' by confessional traditions must be modest. When
it comes to the religious dimension, one should always bear in mind
that 'religion' is more than 'ethics' - more than just rules on how
to act.
[13] 3. What influences the positions taken by theologians and
church leaders in controversies about issues on the bioethics
agenda? It is obvious: all theologians read the same texts in the
Bible but reach different conclusions about what should be
permitted or prohibited. More internal factors, such as doctrines
and traditions, inform standpoints; e.g: creation, justification by
grace, or the ideas of the natural law tradition. There is still a
strong tendency in the theological interpretive practices to favor
reductionist modes of understanding. Every possible ethical
question has to be related to one or two basic ideas or principles.
This mode of interpretation may help to anchor new questions in
their own theological tradition, but it is not very helpful in
communicating with others who might not speak the same language as
members of that particular "tribe."
[14] Broader cultural traditions also have an impact. It makes a
difference if principles such as 'autonomy' or 'human dignity' are
understood in the context of a strict deontological theory, such as
Kant, or in utilitarian contract-theories, or in the context of
moral sense theories, of an Aristotelian teleological ontology, or
in the context of more "pragmatic" approaches. Even if there is a
strong tendency in bioethics towards applied ethics, the
foundational questions still influence how positions are
formed.
[15] But social conditions are also important. In his Social
Teachings of Christian Churches, E. Troeltsch showed that the type
of social organization of a religious group influences ethical
judgments. It makes a difference if it is a big church at the
centre of society or a small group on the periphery that has
limited access to core institutions. For example, John
Polkinghorne, a professor of mathematical physics and an ordained
Anglican priest, played a decisive role in the formation of
institutions in England which monitor and regulate research in
human fertilization and genetics. Also in England, the archbishop
of Oxford was elected chairman of a House of Lords commission that
prepared a report on stem-cell research.8 This would not be possible in
France with its model of laicite, where a bishop may be "a man who
writes books but is not an intellectual."9 In Germany, meanwhile,
bishops and theologians have been members of all the government
commissions established in the last five years.10
[16] These examples merely demonstrate that the role played by
ethical traditions in the political realm depends a lot on the
cognitive maps of the agenda-setting intellectual elites of a
country and their presuppositions about the relations between
modern culture and religion.
[17] Of course, the question as to what churches and theologians
can contribute also has a 'materialistic' dimension. Small churches
with only a few pastors who have a basic education attained through
attending seminaries or at university may not be able to contribute
much in the way of theologicalr eflection to such debates. Does a
church have the resources, the structures and the money necessary
to organize discussion processes on controversial issues such as
embryo research or cloning? In postwar Germany the Protestant
academies provided the platforms for controversial debates in
society.
[18] In such processes, two key questions always emerge: should
the church act more as a forum for ethical controversies and
organize dialogues where representatives of the polarized
viewpoints in the debate can meet to look for common ground for
further action? Or should the church be taking sides? Should it
take a more prophetic role and become a strong factor that
influences the debate in one direction?
[19] How much emphasis is given to the understanding of God "as a
power that creates new possibilities for human well-being in events
of nature and history, including the possibilities that emerge in
the course of evolution and the development of biological
knowledge."11
The more dominant the attitude that the future will bring only
risks, the more one will demand restrictions or at least a
moratorium. The line between necessary precaution and pessimism in
principle can quickly become very small, and it is and will always
be a risky enterprise to try to define that line on the basis of a
specific case. James M. Gustafson described the necessary balance
as "moral realism within the context of hope."12
[20] 4. Three remarks on the potential of Lutheran theology for an
approach to bioethics. One of the cultural effects of the
Reformation was a new attitude towards the reality outside the
church. Seen from that perspective, mere church-politics in the
field of bioethics would be wrong - even if there is a lot of
pressure on institutions in pluralistic societies to make visible
the exact nature of their special competence. To put it simply: God
has always to be understood first as the creator and not as the
founder of a separate institution such as a church. This basic
conviction is an impulse to avoid confessional narrow-mindedness,
and an impulse to broaden perspectives and perceptions.
[21] One pragmatic implication of this theological understanding of
reality as creation was that Luther regarded everyday life as an
important place of worship. He criticized Roman Catholic ethics as
having a doctrine of double standards, and emphasized the
Christian's calling in the world. (The German term for this calling
is Beruf).
[22] An important place to follow one's vocation in modern
societies is the broad field of scientific research. An example of
an attitude that has been informed by this understanding is the
statement of the presiding ELCA bishop Mark Hanson in response to
an inquiry from Dr. Leon Kass, chairman of the President's Council
of Bioethics. "Science and genetic medicine and so forth are good
gifts that are part of the created order and are to be pursued for
their potential for good." "Yes, but….." I assume is the
normal reaction. Perhaps we in the churches need a better
understanding of the highly differentiated field of science, which
we can gain only through an intensive communication with scientists
and not via communication about them.
[23] Another consequence of this impulse is that, from a Lutheran
perspective, other institutions, such as political ones, have a
legitimacy that does not depend on the appreciation of either
theologians or churches. This theologically legitimate independence
has consequences for the understanding of the ethical discourses.
Ethics has two levels: one is the field of the issues that are in
discussion, eg: stem-cell research. The second is the value of the
structures of the political process itself. These structures are
tools that help to make it possible to live together even when
there are fundamental controversies. Procedures are of high ethical
value under the conditions of pluralistic societies. In their
communication, churches have a responsibility not only for the
issues. They are also responsible for the way in which they
communicate with the public about these issues. They set an example
for the style of any discussion, and they should communicate in a
way that permits deliberation.
[24] The normal result of democratic, parliamentary procedures will
be a compromise. Church people like so-called definite answers and
solutions. However, in the midst of dilemmas we always start with
ethical reasoning and ethics do not guarantee to solve these
dilemmas. So compromise is an essential component of ethics that
requires more theological reflection.
[25] In the Christian tradition of ethical reasoning, the impulse
to broaden the perception and perspectives is closely linked to
natural law theories. Such theories have always aimed to articulate
what should be recognized as universally valid. Natural law
theories are the search for comprehensive approaches that aim to
define those norms which are acceptable to everybody. Natural law
theories are a set of questions that arise in every ethical debate
rather than a set of answers. As such, however, they are an
important hermeneutical tool for analyzing "patterns of moral
complexity" (Charles E. Larmore).13
[26] The discussion about which role theological arguments can or
should play in bioethics prompts questions which were reflected in
natural law theories. Luther, and even more Melanchthon, used
natural law arguments. They were an integral part of the Protestant
tradition, eg: Pufendorf or Grotius. Since Barth natural law has
provoked controversy in Protestant ethics, and a new evaluation is
necessary.14
[27] Language and communication played a key role in the theology
of the Reformation fathers. It is helpful to focus on this
dimension in the battles of bioethics and biopolitics. These
battles are often fought over definitions, e.g.: what is the
appropriate definition of embryo or totipotency? The analysis of
the role played by language and rhetorical strategies should be an
essential part of bioethics. The implication is that theologians,
religious communities and churches should reflect more on the power
and limitations of their own language, narratives and images when
using them in the public square.
[28] The focus on language and communication in Reformation
theology was a move against an ontology, where the concept of
'substance' played a foundational role. In Reformation theology the
emphasis is on 'relation'. The focus is not so much on what an
entity is per se - regardless of its relations to others. It is
rather that what an entity 'is' is defined through its
relations.
[29] Seen from this perspective, the whole pattern of the debate
on the status of the embryo is misleading. It focuses on the
fertilized egg as an entity in itself; the relations that are
crucial for its further development are practically left out of the
ethical deliberation. But it makes a significant difference if the
embryo is seen in relation to its mother's womb or on a petri dish.
Today we are seeing the rebirth of a natural teleology through
argumentations that seek their justifications in the results of
developmental biology (potentiality argument). Science proceeds
with generalizing theories. We want to protect individual life. It
is questionable whether a scientific approach that neglects the
relations that constitute individuality (to borrow from
Scheiermacher, individuality is the point of intersection of
relations) will enable us to develop plausible regulations for the
handling of the embryo. From my point of view, a fundamental
hermeneutical question is relevant to the ways in which Protestant
theologians engage in bioethics. Do we read Luther as a
principle-oriented thinker? Is the doctrine of justification really
the solution to all problems? Or is Luther's theology more of a
rhetorical phenomenon, full of rich descriptions of the human
condition? The principle-oriented interpretation takes much of its
inspiration from 19th century idealism.
[30] But Luther is more rooted in the rhetorical and voluntaristic
than in the rationalising tradition.15 We should not reduce
Luther's theology to a few doctrinal statements. He was a forceful
preacher and songwriter, a translator who appealed "to what the
crowd knows." He wanted to speak "simply, clearly and openly" so
that everyone could understand. Affections and virtues or vices are
a focal point of this rhetorical tradition. Luther's theology is
not about abstract ideas and concepts but about fear and trust,
uncertainty and hope, and the joy and grief of everyday life. It is
a model for understanding the human condition as one full of
polarities and tensions. It takes seriously the complexity,
contradictions and paradoxes in our feelings, experiences and
perceptions. There is much more to it than 'reason' and 'logic'. It
does not work with linear deductions or reductions from or to one
or two principles. An integral part of this theology is a rich
anthropology, full of 'thick descriptions' of human life. This is
the foundation for sensitivity towards the individual person, the
individual case and the individual set of circumstances. 'Love' and
'Epikeia' are keywords in an approach to ethics that is inspired by
this tradition. It tends more towards a kind of 'situational
ethics' that demands prudence and wisdom grounded in
experience.
[31] In his book, Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity, (2002),
Leon Kass has placed the questions of anthropology at the center of
his arguments.16 This book is important
because it challenges whether or not we are concerned with the
'real problems.' For Kaas, dignity is more than "reason and
freedom." A necessary part of bioethics is a proper
anthropology17
that takes seriously that we are "embodied human
life…creatures of need and finitude, and hence of longing
and attachments." He also refers to "biblical religion" as an
important "source of a richer and fuller teaching about the whole
of human life."18 He uses biblical texts as a
resource that offers "profound insight into the basis of our
respect for human life." This approach focuses on a dimension of
bioethics where theologians can make a meaningful
contribution.
[32] 5. The different standpoints that are held in the churches and
in the political sphere in Europe make it hard to give an
overview.
[33] Europe has been struggling to come up with regulations ever
since the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity
of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and
Medicine (Orviedo Convention 04.IV. 1997). This text is a mixture
of law and ethics. Its main task is to formulate basic principles
which have to be complemented by specific protocols in particular
fields.
[34] The first draft of the convention was presented as long ago as
1994. It stimulated wide and controversial debate throughout
Europe. The roots of the argument date back to the mid-1980s, when
a Committee of Experts on Bioethics Issues was appointed by the
Committee of Ministers to the European Union, the decision-making
body of the Council which consists of representative ministers from
the member states.
[35] Today the Orviedo Convention has still not been signed by all
the member states. Successive German governments have been unable
to sign it because of harsh criticism voiced by the churches. The
controversial issue is the regulations governing research involving
incapacitated persons, which some commentators saw as opening the
door for research without informed consent.19 (Article 17 - Protection of
persons not able to consent to research - see appendix and the
formulation on embryo research).20
[36] Where the law allows research on embryos in vitro, it shall
ensure adequate protection of the embryo. The creation of human
embryos for research purposes is prohibited. Meanwhile, an
Additional Protocol on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings
(January 1998) was drafted.21 Ethics advisors were
involved in all discussions at the level of the Committee for
Ministers of the EU and the Parliamentary Assembly, and the
Conference of European Churches issued statements.22 But the EU is dominated by
the French model of the separation of religion and politics, and
this made it difficult for European churches to gain access to the
decision-making process in the EU administration.
[37] In Germany, the debates are centred around the Constitution
(particularly the basic rights as they are articulated in Articles
1 and 2).
[38] Article 1:
Human dignity shall be inviolable. To protect and respect it shall
be the duty of all state authority.
[39] The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and
inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace
and justice in the world.
[40] Article 2 (personal freedoms): Every person shall have the
right to free development of his personality insofar as he does nto
violate the rights of others or offend against the institutional
order or the moral law.
[41] The churches have turned these articles into pillars of a kind
of theory of civil religion. They make constant references to these
articles, particularly to the concept of 'dignity'. They combine
them with their own rhetoric about man as the 'image of God' and a
Kantian deontology. On the basis of this religious-political
foundation they oppose all 'utilitarianism' and all research
strategies that appear to reduce human beings to a means for
others' goals. Every 'manipulative action has to be 'absolutely
excluded.'
[42] The other important legal regulation in Germany is the Embryo
Protection Act of 1991.23 This law established a legal
definition of an embryo. It defines an embryo as: 'a fertilized
human egg capable of development from the moment of fusion of the
nuclei.' Any totipotent egg removed from an embryo is also defined
as 'an embryo.' The churches defend this law as the proper and
effective tool to 'defend the dignity of every human being.'
[43] The most recent relevant document was the Stem Cell Act
(Stammzellgesetz), which took effect on 1 July, 2002. After a long
and heated public debate the law was approved by the German
parliament. As a result of the parliamentary decision-making
process, the law is a compromise. It balances the different legal
positions and ethical evaluations between protection of the embryo
and the freedom of research.24 The law bans the import and
use of human embryonic stem cells in principle, but exceptions are
made for research purposes under strict conditions. The import of
stem cells is permitted under the following conditions:
[44] Alternative forms of research have been exhausted;
Use is permitted only of stem cell lines that were created before
1 January 2002 from surplus embryos created for reproduction and
which were not used for reasons other than research.
[45] The research project must serve highly important scientific
findings; the aim of the project must have been assessed by the
ethics committee.
[46] The Robert Koch Institute, a research facility of the Federal
Health Ministry, was given the responsibility of licensing the
import of and research on human ES cells. The Government has also
appointed an interdisciplinary ethics committee that, together with
the RKI, evaluates applications from researchers who want to import
human ES cell lines. The ethics committee consists of two
biologists, two ethicists, three physicians, and two theologians
(one Roman Catholic and one Protestant).
[47] In a joint statement, the Evangelical Church of Germany (EKD)
and the Catholic Bishops Conference expressed their deep
disappointment and strong criticism of the parliament's decision,
which they said contradicts the basic principles of the fundamental
law: "The right to life and unlimited protection of a human being
from the moment of fertilization onwards can no longer be
guaranteed," the statement said.
[48] 6. In Germany bioethical discussions have a special dimension
because the memory of National Socialist rule plays a role in all
ethical considerations. During those years human life was destroyed
for 'research purposes'. During the debates on the Convention a
German minister commented: 'Precisely because of history, we
Germans have a particular duty in the field of bioethics.' The
Diakonische Werk, the main headquarters of the diaconal branch of
Protestant churches, which employ more than 400.000 people,
published a statement against the possibility of carrying out
research without any direct benefit for an incapacitated person.
'How close the danger is for abuse in research and science became
quite clear in the concentration camps and through the euthanasia
project of the National Socialist tyranny.'
[49] Again, it is history and memory - the cultural dimension -
that matters. All the well-known arguments against
instrumentalization, the violation of human dignity, the danger of
selection and euthanasia, "slippery slope" arguments and the
patterns of the status of the embryo debate and so on, are
constantly reiterated by representatives of the churches in the
bioethics discussion.
[50] In the German context, churches means the Roman Catholic
church and the organization of Protestant Churches
(EKD).25 A
majority of the population, 65%, still belong to these
institutions. The churches also run a high percentage of welfare
networks, such as Caritas and Diakonie, which have an influence in
German political culture. But, do all church members agree with the
points of view put forward by the leading representatives? In the
Protestant churches, theologians working as ethicists at
universities published an opinion contrary to that of the
Protestant church in the Journal of Lutheran Ethics. A statement by
Bishop W. Huber about this 'dissenting voice' illustrates just how
controversial it was to conduct this discussion within German
Protestantism: the bishop condemned it as 'an abuse of the
Protestant notion of freedom.'26
[51] So far, I have talked about the role of the churches in the
public debates that have focused on the political decision-making
process. I have not touched on the distinctive contribution of a
Lutheran bioethics. Of course, the organization of Lutheran
Churches (VELKD) has also published statements on bioethical issues
(e.g.: the conference of Lutheran bishops in March 2001). But the
substance of the Lutheran position does not differ from that of the
EKD or the Roman Catholic church when it comes to the question of
research using blastocytes/embryos that will never be implanted in
a woman's womb.
[52] If you study the documents of the EKD, you see that all the
important statements in the public realm express shared ecumenical
positions. This ecumenical cooperation in the field of bioethics
had already begun when politicians and legal experts prepared the
Embryo Protection Act. In 1989 the churches published a joint
declaration entitled: God loves all lives. Challenges and tasks for
the protection of human life. This document contains all the
arguments that still guide the statements made by the churches
today. At the center of these arguments is the reference to the
religious-political notion of the 'image of God'.
[53] "The idea of mankind created in 'the image of God' originates
from the first biblical theory of creation (Genesis 1, 26f).
According to today's accepted interpretation of Genesis 1, 26f, its
original meaning was to indicate that mankind had been appointed
God's representative and vice-regent for the created world.
Historically, however, Genesis 1, 26f has been understood by the
church to denote a wider interpretation of mankind being made in
the image of God. Thus, in the spiritual world of Christianity, the
notion has become central to references to the special dignity of
man's life. Article 1, section 1, of the German Constitution can be
understood in this tradition".
[54] This notion of human dignity is also applied to prenatal human
life: "Embryonic research has led to the clear conclusion that from
the moment of the coalescence of the egg cell and the sperm cell a
living being exists, which can in the course of its development
become nothing other than a human being..."
[55] The embryo has the same "potential of unlimited exercise of
humanity….from the beginning; unborn life has the same claim
on protection as life after birth (deliberate operations which
allow for its damage or destruction as a side effect are not
acceptable, however important the aims which the research wishes to
achieve."
[56] Therefore, 'even the smallest movement in the direction of
allowing research which makes use of embryos as ''expendable''
crosses a fundamental boundary. It is a question of the protection
of supreme values, in the last resort of the reverence for humanity
and every person's right to life, which are anchored in Articles 1
and 2 of the Constitution.'
[57] One last church document has to be mentioned. In August 2002
the EKD issued a document entitled: To deal with Life in the Spirit
of Love. This text, the result of a long discussion process,
contains further discussion of a wide range of
topics.27 The
document presents the arguments for the two positions on the
protection of the pre-implantation embryo that are articulated by a
majority of church leaders (every embryo has an intrinsic value in
the strongest sense) and the position of the aforementioned group
of university Protestant ethicists. (the pre-implantation embryo
that is no longer part of the parental project has a significant
but not an absolute value).
[58] The underlying assumptions that guide these two positions
require further analysis and reflection. I would like to highlight
two relevant points:
the first is the different opinions about the function of
religious language and imagery, and how a language can be related
to the scientific descriptions of developmental biology.
[59] The second is the anthropological dimension. In Protestantism
nothing similar to the natural-tradition of the Roman Catholic
church exists even though Protestant church leaders accepted the
Roman Catholic position on research on pre-implantation
embryos.
[60] In Germany at least, one can conclude, there exists a new
'ecumenical dogma': An absolute and inviolable dignity of human
life beings with the fertilization of an egg-cell. This
interpretation goes beyond Article 1 of the Basic Law because the
highest court (the Bundesverfassungsgericht) has not decided
whether the pre-implantation blastocyte is the bearer of inviolable
rights. However, this position is not capable of achieving
consensus within the broad context of European Protestant churches.
The ecumenical task - in the sense of exchanging arguments on the
positions of the different Protestant churches - still lies far
ahead. So does the discussion about the cultural dimensions of
bioethical standards.
[61] German churches acted as a pressure group for one position in
the controversies and helped to fuel the discussions with suspician
and mistrust. Theologically speaking, one is entitled to ask
whether this reflects a proper understanding of the role of the
church.
[62] The work of institutes such as the Society of Religion and
Technology Project,28 of the Church of Scotland,
or the Institute of Technology, Theology, and Natural Sciences at
Munich (30), which is partly sponsored by the Lutheran Church of
Bavaria, are good examples of a different approach.
[63] This approach is more orientated towards dialogue and
recognizes that no position can avoid ambiguity. Theologians at
least should know that 'absolute truth' is nothing, finite human
beings can receive insight. Trust in God might not be our smallest
resource we have to live with ambiguities in the midst of the
choices we need to make.
Appendix
The Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
Article 6 of the Convention - Protection of persons not able to
consent
1. Subject to Articles 17 and 20 (below), an intervention may be
carried out on a person who does not have the capacity to consent
only for his or her direct benefit.
Article 17 - Protection of persons not able consent to
research
Research on a person without the capacity to consent as stipulated
in Article 5 may only be undertaken if all the following conditions
are met:
Exceptionally and under the protective conditions prescribed by
law, where the research does not have the potential to produce
results of direct benefit to the healing of the person concerned,
such research may be authorized subject to the conditions laid down
in paragraph I, sub paragraphs I, iii, IV and V above, and to the
following additional conditions - the research has the aim of
contributing through significant improvement in the scientific
understandign of the individual condition, disease or disorder, to
the ultimate attainment of results capable of conferring benefit to
the person concerned or to other persons in the same category or
afflicted with the same disease or disorder or having the same
condition.
II the research entails only minimal risk and minimal burden
for the individual concerned.
End Notes
1. Christopher Vaughan, and Kevin Cool: Cell Division, in: Stanford Magazine May/June 2003.
2. With 'what is' I don't mean some unreflected ontological assumptions about reality. I only want to indicate that every moral statement is rooted in convictions about something we take for granted. David Tracy once wrote "reality is, what we name our best interpretation" (Plurality and Ambiguity, 1987, p. 48).
3. Minou Bernadette Friele (ed.) Embryo Experimentation in Europe. Bio-medical, Legal and Philosophical Aspects, February 2001 (Europäische Akademie Grey Seris Nr. 24).(http://www.europaeische-akademie-aw.de/). The best Overview is no available in Davor Solter et al. Embryo Research in Pluralistic Europe, Berlin et a. 2003. This book does not only give an overview over "The Regulation of Embryo Research in Europe: Situation and Prospects with three Case Studies" (UK, Spain Germany). It also evaluates available data about attitudes towards science and technology in European societies. "In all countries, the scientific community is perceived as one of the groups with the highest contribution to human progress, along with medical doctors ...Politicians and the clergy are at the opposite extreme" (167). The study also presents material about the impact of religious beliefs. "In six of the nine countries, the position that finds the greatest approval, is the one that ascribes to a human embryo a few days old the same moral condition as to a human being. These are countries with very large Catholic majorities, where the Roman Catholic Church plays an active cultural role" (178).
4. For Albert R. Jonsen, The Birth of Bioethics, New York Oxford 1998, the book of P. Ramsey The Patient as Person.Explorations in Medical Ethics(1970) "deserves to be ranked as the first truly modern study of the new ethics of science and medicine" (50).
5. Eric J. Cassell,The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine, New York and Oxford 1991, xv.
6. Cambridge 1994.
7. Rennin Gillon, article "Bioethics, Overview," in: Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, Volume 1. San Diego a. o. 1998, p. 305-317, 312.
8. House of Lords Stem Cell Research Committee Publication presented 13. February 2002.
9. Statement of a French sociologist on a small conference P. L. Berger organized on secularization in Europe in Berlin.
10. Bishop W. Huber from the Berlin-Brandenburg-Church, who is also a renown Professor of Ethics was until his election as chairman of the EKD last year a member of the Ethics Council (Nationaler Ethikrat) that was established by Chancellor G. Schröder (http://www.nationalerethikrat.de/_english/index.html). Huber is followed in that position by the Vice-president of the EKD Hermann Barth. Another member of that council is Richard Schroeder from the Humboldt University in Berlin. The German Parliament (Bundestag) established in the last and in the running electoral term Study Commissions (Enquete-Kommissionen) on "Law and Ethics in Modern Medicine" (2000-2002) and "Ethics and Law in Modern Medicine" where Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians are members. Also in Switzerland and Austria theologians are members of advisory boards and government commissions. ( http://www.bundestag.de/gremien15/kommissionen/ethik_med/index.html)
11. James M. Gustafson: The Contribution Of Theology To Medical Ethics, Milwaukee 1975, p 44.
12. Gustafson, Contribution 48.
13. Still important is the analysis of the fundamental role of natural-law theories in the history of Christian ethics that Ernst Troeltsch undertook in his Social Teachings of the Christian Churches. Its range of influence reaches to H.R. Niebuhr's Classic Christ and Culture (1951) and James M. Gustafsons recent book An Examined Faith (2004). Gustafson: "the agenda of classic liberal Protestant theology is not superseded by subsequent theological fashions, though its constructive proposals are inadequate" (ibid p 78) And in the note to this sentence: "I vividly recall Wilhelm Pauck´s final words at the end of a 1951 course on theology since Schleiermacher, 'Barth has not answered Troeltsch; he has only bypassed him'" (p. 115).
14. An interesting attempt of reevaluation was e.g. the work of a "Ecumenical Group" that was constituted 1939 in Chicago after the "Oxford Conference" Members where James Luther Adams, Edwin E. Aubrey, Wilhelm Pauck, Paul Ramsey, John T. Mc. Neill. John T. McNeill: "Natural Law in the Thought of Luther," in: Church History Vol X (1941), p. 211-227; James Luther Adams, "The Law of Nature: Some General Considerations," in: Journal of Religion Vol. 25 (1945) p. 88-118; another attempt was Emil Brunner's book Justice (deutsch 1943); Gene H. Outka, Paul Ramsey (ed.) Norm and Context in Christian Ethics (1968), "Part Two - Natural Law: A Reassessment of the Tradition," p. 139 ff..
15. Ulrich Nembach, "Predigt des Evangeliums." Luther als Prediger, Pädagoge und Rhetor, 1972; George A. Kennedy; Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times, 1980; Marjorie O`Rourke Boyle, Rhetoric and Reform: Erasmus` Civil Dispute with Luther, 1983; Birgit Stolt, Martin Luthers Rhetorik des Herzens, 2000;
16. Kaas ibid p. 20. "What is urgently needed is a richer, more natural biology and anthropology, one that does full justice to the meaning of our peculiarly human union of soul and body in which low neediness and divine-seeking aspiration are concretely joined."
17. The last solid overview over the Protestant positions was prepared at the Interdisciplinary Research Institute, that is sponsored by the EKD, the FESt in Heidelberg: Hartwig von Schubert, Evangelische Ethik und Biotechnologie, 1991; Jürgen Hübner, Hardwig von Schubert (ed.) Biotechnologie und evangelische Ethik. Die internationale Diskussion, 1992. (http://www.fest-heidelberg.de/)
18. Kaas ibid, note on p. 239.
19. Article 6 of the Convention - Protection of persons not able to consent
20. Article 18 - Research on embryos in vitro
21. Article 1. Any intervention seeking to create a human being genetically identical to another human being whether living or dead, is prohibited.
22. For example from the Working Group on Bioethics of European Churches Church and Society Commission. (http://www.cec-kek.org/English/cs.htm#bioethics)
23. A good overview over the way that led to the act and about its content is given in the commentary: Rolf Keller, Hans-Ludwig Günther, Peter Kaiser, Embryonenschutzgesetz, 1992.
24. Basic law Article 5 sentence (3) "Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free".
25. The EKD now has an English webside with some translated documents: http://www.ekd.de/english/2403.html
26. W. Huber: In Verantwortung vor Gott und den Menschen, in: Deutsches Pfarrerblatt 11/2002 S. 559 - 565, 564.The group of ethicists published a book with more detailed arguments for their opinion: Streitfall Biomedizin. Urteilsfindung in christlicher Verantwortung, hg. V. Reiner Anselm und Ulrich H. J. Körtner mit einer Einführung von Trutz Rendtorff, Göttingen 2003.
27. PND, PID, research with "surplus-embryos," cloning, assisted suicide, reflections about the understanding of "medicine" and its task.
28. http://www.srtp.org.uk/srtpage3.shtml
© April 2004
Journal of Lutheran Ethics
Volume 4, Issue 4