Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Genetic engineering: a Catholic persepctive on creating an ethical framework

By Yuri Koszarycz and Gary Curran - posted Friday, 11 June 2004


Much of the information in contemporary genetics is the result of a collaborative international research effort known as the Human Genome Project . On 26th June 2000, it was announced that the HGP had realized its goal, culminating in the publication of the first draft of the complete human genome.

Thus the science of genetic engineering has progressed to a point where we can definitively state that such manipulation will shape the society of the future. Christian theological ethics, in proclaiming the dignity and the rights of each human person, should endeavour to understand the complexities of these emerging sciences.

The adult human body consists of body cells or somatic cells. In addition, the ova or sperm cells, known as germ cells, allow for the reproduction of the species. Genetic manipulation can be applied to either of the somatic or germ line cells. Genetic intervention may allow faulty genes to be removed and correct ones to be inserted, resulting in the normal expression of the genes, and thus the elimination of the abnormal conditions. This in itself raises ethical questions for it can be argued that any changes made to somatic cells are restricted to one individual, whereas changes to germline cells have the potential to be passed onto future generations and thus may have effects on the whole of humanity as an evolving species.

Advertisement

Indiscriminate use of genetic modification may have the potential to do irreparable harm to the individual and society as a whole. Relevant questions need to be asked with regard to the use of genetic engineering. These include:

  • Could manipulating a gene to effect a somatic cure for a particular condition cause serious side effects to the patient?
  • If genetic manipulation promises to eliminate disease, will all members of society have access to this treatment?
  • Is there a possibility that, in the future, some individuals will be conceived with the assistance of genetic technology and, as such, may be positively discriminated for, while those not being conceived in this manner could be regarded as second class citizens?
  • Could an individual who receives either germline or somatic cell genetic manipulation suffer psychological problems as a result of the treatment?
  • Will information from gene technology be used in the workplace to determine a person's suitability for a particular job?
  • What is the implication of the development of legitimate gene therapy as used in the treatment of a disease as an application for nefarious purposes - e.g. the applications of genetic technology in warfare?
  • If genes can be can be manipulated to produce superior physical attributes, should such knowledge be used to humanity's advantage?
  • Just because we have the power and technological ability to facilitate aspects of genetic engineering, should we actually use it and, if so, according to which philosophical, ethical, scientific, and legal guidelines?

Gene therapy

The ethical questions already raised above pose a direct challenge to ensure that knowledge derived from the HGP will lead to proper ethical investigation and appropriate scientific application where the conditions for human beings can be improved.

From a Christian viewpoint we argue that the formulation of appropriate theological guidelines would provide a starting point in determining the ethics of employing genetic therapy. Such guidelines would adopt the principle of respect for human life and carefully balance the scientific and therapeutic benefit to the individual against the possible medical, sociological and psychological dangers involved in the procedure.

The technical or medical use of genetic engineering must always preserve human dignity, human freedom and the right to the fulfilment of human potential. The elimination or treatment of disease, and the alleviation of human suffering by using genetic interference, are worthy and ethical goals provided that the client is fully informed about any of the possible negative as well as positive consequences of the treatment. As unique individuals, created for an eternal destiny with a loving Creator, our principal concern should always be for the preservation of our individual humanity and dignity.

Advertisement

Much of the developing science surrounding genetic engineering implies enormous economic and commercial concern. Ethical issues are raised as matters of equity and social justice where considerations for just and proper allocation of resources need to be ensured. In terms of such resource allocation, one needs to consider if the costs of genetic manipulation can be justified in light of more urgent health problems presently not being addressed due to lack of funding.

Genetic screening in the workplace

Advancement in genetic technology has also led to complex problems of social justice where individuals may be denied basic rights due to outcomes in genetic screening. Whether for political, economic or personal use, the use of genetic information could be used in a positive way to screen employees that may be at risk in a polluted workplace. For example, there are genes that predispose some individuals to certain cancers where the risk may be increased in the presence of certain environmental factors. Thus, screening for the relevant marker genes may help an individual use that information to make the decision not to work in a particular environment.

A genetically tailored human race?

Where does one draw the line in genetic research? Though we see the present benefits of genetic engineering to treat disease, perhaps even history would have shown humanity and civilisation to be poorer as a result, had such procedures been available in the past. For example, Justice Kirby in Australian Biologist (1996:104) muses: "If the deafness marker were found and eliminated, might we lose a Beethoven? If the blindness marker were found, would we lose a Milton? ... How many great spirits of the past would have been eliminated?" Perhaps this is a forewarning, and a caveat: we must carefully reflect on the principle that the deliberate selection of characteristics in the unborn may be a dangerous path for human civilisation to take.

Prenatal screening

In the Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation (Donum Vitae 1987), the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith argued that "if prenatal diagnosis respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human foetus and is directed toward its safeguarding or healing as an individual", then the procedure can be considered morally licit by applying the ethical Principle of Double Effect. It also argued that the procedure must not involve disproportionate risks to the unborn child. The main concern that the Catholic Church holds is that such prenatal procedures may be linked to abortion. The Church views as immoral an expectant mother submitting to prenatal testing for the purpose of eliminating a foetus which is affected by malformations or which is a carrier of hereditary illness. Such purposes are interpreted as having much in common with the policy of eugenics. However, some ethicists such as the Australian, Peter Singer have posed a counter-argument: is it ethical or moral knowingly to bring into the world a severely physically or mentally deformed child?

The foundational ethical principle to consider remains: respect for the individual. Perhaps we need to look at a holistic conception of the human person rather than focus on what physically defines them. In other words, we need to consider human personhood in its entirety, that is, in all its physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual and social dimensions.

Cloning of human beings

Australia, along with much of the international community, currently bans the cloning of human beings. The same technology that produced Dolly the sheep conceivably could be utilised in the cloning of humans. From a scientific view, this practice would be considered dangerous. First, as the genetic material from the donor is already of a certain age, the DNA of the cloned human would too be aged and there would be a real possibility of premature aging as well as an increase in genetic deformities. This already had been noted in Dolly. Secondly, from an ethical and religious perspective, it must be asked whether such procedures are in accordance with God's will and the dignity of human life. Given the almost universal ban on such genetic procedures, ethicists, politicians, legislators, and scientists currently have grave reservations about the morality and efficacy of such actions.

The human stem cell debate

Human Stem Cell research and therapy are divided into two possibilities: the use of embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells. Stem cells by definition are pluripotent; that is, they are the most primitive cells in the body, which give rise to all other cells. Theoretically they can be transformed into any of the 200 or so different cells that form tissue and organs in the human body.

Unfortunately, the present use of embryonic stem cells poses several problems. As they are derived from very early embryos, by definition they will not be used in therapeutic treatments of the donor, and thereby will elicit rejection reactions commonly found in normal transplants of foreign tissue. For those who regard life as starting from conception, that is, the initial fertilisation leading to the formation of the zygote and subsequent mitotic divisions, this amounts to destruction of human life. However, the ethical counter-argument is that many do not accept this definition regarding life's origins. In addition, the banning of this research may inhibit or block completely important scientific research that could lead to new treatments and cures of various diseases. The use of human embryonic stem cells in such research, continues to divide the community as to whether their use is ethical.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is evident that the science of genetic engineering and manipulation is already available. It will shape society now and in the future. A number of genetic applications are possible and the morality of each application must be examined in the light of the specific circumstances under which genetic intervention is utilised. Theologians and ethicists have a vital role to play in proclaiming the dignity and the rights of each human person. They should endeavour to understand the complexities of the emerging sciences and must work closely with philosophers, jurists, scientific bodies, medical associations and the providers of genetic technologies, so that workable guidelines, codes of ethics, and regulations are enacted that will prohibit certain negative and destructive applications of the technology.

It is important to realise that the benefits of genetic technology should benefit humanity in areas such as individual medical therapy and the improvement of food availability, particularly in economically deprived areas. Genetic engineering for corporate power, or as a means of warfare, or of depriving certain individuals or groups from insurance cover must be seen as morally suspect. All uses of this technology nevertheless need to be monitored by responsible governments, legislators, and scientific organisations with a view to maintaining safeguards against possible detrimental effects of the technology. However, this may not be enough. It is equally the responsibility of each competent individual to be morally aware when confronted with issues related to genetic engineering; this then enters into the domain of ongoing moral, ethical and theological education.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Article edited by Jenny Ostini.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.

This article first appeared in the February, 2004 Issue of The Australian Ejournal of Theology.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Authors

Yuri Koszarycz is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Theology, McAuley Campus, Australian Catholic University. He has degrees in philosophy, theology and education and lectures in bioethics, ethics and church history.

Gary Curran holds graduate and post-graduate qualifications in science, education and theology. He has extensive experience in both science and educational employment having worked as a Medical Technologist, Microbiologist and Laboratory Manager. Currently he is Head of Science at St. Columban's College.

Other articles by these Authors

All articles by Yuri Koszarycz
All articles by Gary Curran
Related Links
Australian Ejournal of Theology
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
Redemptor Hominis
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Latest from Church Resources
 Genetic engineering: a Catholic persepctive on creating an ethical framework
 Impacts of papal teaching on vegitative patients in Catholic hospitals
 Alex's case: unbalanced evidence and no assurance the treatment will work
 Euthanasia by omission: food and water must not be withheld
 Debates about primacy of conscience show the need for truth and freedom
 More...
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy