Bioethics: A Primer for Christians, Research Paper Example

Meilaender views the world, humanity and humanity’s interaction with others in the world from a fundamentalist Christian perspective. He does not attempt to explain the world through the eyes of every Christian, but rather, he attempts to say “what we Christians ought to say in order to be faithful to the truth that has claimed us in Jesus.”(Meilaender, 2005) Meilaender looks toward traditional Christian teachings to form an understanding of humans and their place in the world. In Meilaender’s view, Christians must be aware of and act according to certain biblically based truths. One is that humans belong entirely to God, whom, he says “we must learn to love even more than we love father or mother.” Individuality, according to Meilaender’s view does not come from human accomplishment, but rather from God’s notice and call.

Another belief that shapes Meilaender’s viewpoint is that human beings ought to treat one another with charity. Christians, in particular, are all part of one body, according to Christian doctrine, and are meant to share one another’s burdens. Furthermore, the New Testament requires Christians to treat others with charity. According to Meilaender, this means that Christians must treat the weak with compassion and care. They must protect the weak, rather than succumbing to sinful natures which make men take advantage of those who are weaker than they are.

Society, according to Meilaender, tends to define “personhood” by a person’s capacity and ability. This, he says, has made many treat some human beings as if they are not really people. A Christian, however, according to Meilaender, sees all human life as sacred. Those who are Christians, therefore, must treat even the weak or disabled well. Indeed, to the Christian, those who lack abilities might even be deserving of more attention. While society is sometimes willing to deny the personhood of the unborn, Meilaender believes that the Christian cannot. He points to biblical examples of unborn personhood, including the struggling of Jacob and Esau before they were born and the leaping of John the Baptist and the news of Jesus’ birth, even while he was still in the womb. Finally, he points to a psalm, which says, “Thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb.” A Christian, therefore, must, in Meilaender’s view, be aware of the sacredness of life even before birth.

Christians also have a view of sex that is sometimes incompatible with society’s view. While society sees sex as a way to achieve personal gratification, Christians, according to Meilaender, see sex as “mutual self-giving”, which is blessed by God through the granting of children. Children, meanwhile, are not, says Meilaender, products made by human design, but are instead a heritage from God. Sex and babies, in the Christian view, go together. Babies ought to be, he thinks, the result of love and passion, rather than reason and will.

Finally, Christians must recognize limitations, says Meilaender. They are not to pursue their own desires above all else. Rather, he says, “A moral vision shaped by this Christian understanding of the person must be prepared to say no to some exercises of human freedom.” (Meilaender, 2005, p. 4) According to Meilaender, the Christian must trust in God more than in man. He must not put too much faith in man’s medicine. He must not make an idol of science.

Meilaender’s views greatly influence his approach to addressing and resolving ethical issues. Because of Meilaender’s belief that babies ought to result from passion, rather than reason, he opposes artificial methods of conception. He sees a moral error in creating a baby through “reproduction” as if it were a factory product, rather than “procreation.” A baby conceived in love he says, is the result of the union of two parents. A baby creating artificially is a product which may become subject to methods of quality control. It may, he says, sever and “blur” the lines of kinship.

Artificial reproduction is also a problem to the Christian, says Meilaender, because it makes something of medicine that it should not. Medicine, he says, should attempt to treat illnesses. It should not attempt to be men’s savior. That role is reserved for the real savior. But artificial reproduction begins to make of medicine what Meilaender believes it ought not. Indeed, he says, “With artificial methods of child-making, a doctor is not treating a disease, but a desire.” Furthermore, Meilaender objects to the objectification of the child. He frowns at the creation and freezing of extra embryos that might be “used” later (Meilaender, 2005). He objects also to the idea of children being a means by which to satisfy parents. Even adoption, he says, ought not to be pursued for parental gratification. It should be an act of emergency, by which potential parents, through charity, meet the needs of the weak and parentless. Otherwise, he says, parents may reject children with flaws and seek only those with “desirable” qualities.

Meilaender’s view of the sacredness of human life, and especially that of the unborn, shape his position on abortion. Meilaender believes that the Christian position on abortion is very clear and that Christians have been opposed to abortion since the outset. It is, he says, not only sinful, but clearly murder. According to Meilaender, the unborn are the very sort of people Christians ought to protect, because they are the smallest and weakest members of society. He rejects the claim that they lack personhood.

Meilaender’s views also help form his position on suicide and assisted suicide. Meilaender, unlike many other Christians, does not believe that suicide is automatically damning. While it is true that one who kills himself does not have the chance to repent afterward, says Meilaender, neither does a homicide victim have the chance to repent for any evils he committed just before. God, says Meilaender, sees the soul and an individual’s entire life. Eternal judgment is not the Christian’s to make, but it is, rather, says Meilaender, God’s. Christians ought not to try to step into his role.

Yet Meilaender does believe that suicide is wrong. It too involves humans taking on the wrong role. Indeed, says Meilaender, suicide is contrary to nature. It is our refusal to take life as God gives it to us day by day. Our lives, according to Meilaender’s view, are not ours to do with as we choose. Rather, they are to be used to benefit the one body. Our lives are not, he says, simply our possession, but rather they are a gift from God. Suicide, therefore, say Meilaender, “is a desire to be more like the creator than the creature.” (Meilaender, 2005, p. 56)

Those who support suicide or assisted suicide, sometimes do so because they sympathize with an individual’s desire for independence and autonomy. They feel sorry for those who are no longer able to take care of themselves. Yet, according to Meilaender’s view, “The language of autonomy is deceptive.” (Meilaender, 2005, p. 59) He points out that decisions like suicide do not generally affect only the person who commits it. Meilaender quotes one person as saying, “He didn’t just take his life, he took part of ours too.” (Meilaender, 2005, p. 59) Therefore, in Meilaender’s eyes, suicide robs the body as well as the individual.

Yet Meilaender is not always opposed to refusing medical treatment. The Christian, he says, should not aim for death, but neither does he need to fight it when his time comes. Life is, he says, a great good, but it is not the greatest good. Meilaender praises the Martyrs, who, he said, did not aim to die, but knew that they might die if they remained loyal to Jesus. This loyalty was, says Meilaender, a greater good than life. Similarly, according to Meilaender, a Jehovah’s Witness who refuses medical treatment because he believes that accepting it is immoral is justified in refusing treatment. However, if doctors tried to restrain him and force him to take treatment and he grabbed a gun and shot himself, he would not be justified, because his aim, then, would be death (Meilaender, 2005, p. 66). “”Allowing to die is permissible, “according to Meilaender, “Killing is not.”

Meilaender takes issue with those who suggest that assisted suicide is an option. Instead of asking if death might benefit a patient, he says, doctors ought to ask what they can do to “benefit the life he already has.” (Meilaender, 2005, p. 84) Some fear that those with illnesses may burden them with time and claims on their energy. Yet, according to Meilaender, this is when people ought to exhibit charity. They are called to protect the sick.

Finally, Meilaender, while noting that much good can come from organ donation, voices some reservations about the practice. He frowns at the idea of “dehumanizing the body” and looking at it as a mass of “alienable parts to be moved.”(Meilaender, 2005, p. 89) He also cautions that if organ donation and euthanasia are coupled together, the possibility of harvesting the weak and elderly for their organs becomes more rea (Meilaender, 2005, p. 90). For someone simply concerned with utility or the survival of the fittest, this idea might not be troubling. But for a Christian who regards his body as the temple of God and who is meant to protect the weaker members of society, that possibility is horrific.

It is easy to agree with most of Meilaender’s views. His explanation of the personhood of the unborn is a good one, that would be hard for Christians (at least those who take the bible literally) to argue with. Who would argue, for instance, that John the Baptist could have justly been aborted after he leapt in his mother’s womb? Meilaender’s charge that Christians should be more concerned with charity than individuality is also a good one. It is very consistent with biblical teachings. Consider the example of Jesus washing his disciples’ feet and his instructions to his disciples to take care of one another in the same way.

Meilaender’s claim that Christians ought to take care of those who are weak and disabled is also very consistent with biblical principles. Jesus often took time to help those who were disabled, weak, poor or otherwise disadvantaged. He healed the lame and the sick – even those who were afflicted with leprosy and therefore outcasts. He praised the poor and strengthened the weak. Showing charity to others is, indeed, consistent with biblical teachings.

Yet at least one of Meilaender’s claims is a little shaky. His claim that a Jehovah’s Witness who refuses treatment is acting morally, but one who kills himself to avoid treatment is not is a little suspect. If, indeed, refusing treatment because one thinks it is moral justifies an action that results in death, then it would be just as easy to argue that a Jehovah’s witness who shoots himself is justified, as his motive was to prevent immoral treatment, rather than a desire for death.

One other point of Meilaender’s that is a bit suspect is his claim that he tries to say what Christians ought to say if they are to be true to the teachings of Jesus. Many of Meilaender’s points really have little to do with anything Jesus said. His decisions are, instead, rooted in teachings of certain Christian philosophers. His statements regarding adoption, for instance, seem to have little basis in biblical teachings. At no point did Jesus indicate that parents should not have children for their own gratification, nor did he say anything about adoption being used as an emergency method. While Meilaender might believe this, it would not be fair to say that a Christian must believe it to remain true to Jesus’ teachings.

Meilaender is right; however, in pointing out that we often make ethical decisions less logically than we think we do. Rather than relying completely on reason, we often rely on our background, upbringing and faith to help us make decisions. I often make ethical choices based on my feeling about what is right. My faith, for instance, has led me to oppose harming the unborn. This might lead me to hesitate before agreeing to participate in medical procedure that involved denying the personhood of those who had not yet left the womb. Like Meilaender, I think it is more important to ask how patients’ lives might be bettered, rather than if death might benefit a patient. Faith, then, is perhaps as much a part of my decision making as reason.

Works Cited

Meilaender, G. (2005). Bioethics: A Primer for Christians. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.