D Gareth Jones

1. Technological inroads into the beginnings of human life: Social, ethical and religious repercussions D Gareth Jones

2. Introduction ‘Human life is sacred from conception’ • Regarded by some as foundational for Christian witness • Propounded with assurance; biblical concept? • Sacredness of human life from first glimmerings (what does this claim mean?)

3. Introduction ‘Human life is sacred from conception’ • Is this position necessary to keep in check the rampant run-away forces of modern science? • Should our worldview depend upon it? • Many accept the sacredness-conception combination as basic dogma • Should it be mark of faithfulness to Christian fundamentals? • Relevance to reproductive technology debates

4. Introduction • Multifaceted challenges • Biblical teaching • Place of scientific concepts in theological thinking • Pastoral issues

5. The ARTs in historical context • Manufacturing Humans: The Challenge of the New Reproductive Technologies

6. Scientific developments continue to outstrip the ability of our ethical (and theological) systems to cope with them Modern medicine – hopes; perils What room is left for God and faith? Increasing life expectancy and overcoming infertility – more dependent on technology than God’s grace The ARTs in historical context

7. 1989 > 400,000 children born via IVF Todayc. 4 million Technological developments development of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI); enabling older women to have children health status of IVF children; rare genetic ‘imprinting’ disorders The ARTs in historical context

8. 1989 - preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) developed; selection of embryos; eugenics? The ARTs in historical context • 1998 – embryonic stem cells first derived from human embryos; dominate debate on ARTs especially in theological circles

9. 1997 - birth of Dolly (first cloned mammal) Dire warnings predicting the end of humanity as we know it The ARTs in historical context

10. 1987 - therapeutic or research cloning unknown Today- seen as the way forward for regenerative medicine’; threat to human dignity? The ARTs in historical context

11. 1987 - chimeras and hybrids part of Greek mythology or science fiction Today- serious science; vociferous objections by Christian groups to ‘inter-species embryos’ The ARTs in historical context

12. 1980s - 8% of babies born at 23 weeks’ gestation and 40-45% of those born at 28 weeks survived The ARTs in historical context • Today- 50% of babies born at 23 weeks survive and 80% of those born at 28 weeks

13. 1984 - Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Warnock Report) Human embryos have special status, but not equal to that of actual persons Research on human embryos allowed up to 14 days Responses to IVF in the mid-1980s

14. Infertility is condition meriting treatment IVF and donor insemination are established treatments Egg and embryo donation acceptable with provisos Responses to IVF in the mid-1980s

15. Oliver O’Donovan, Begotten or Made? (1984) Responses to IVF in the mid-1980s “When we start making human beings we necessarily stop loving them; . . . that which is maderather than begottenbecomes something that we have at our disposal, not someone with whom we can engage in brotherly fellowship.”

16. Responses to IVF in the mid-1980s “I do not know how to think of an IVF child except . . . as the creatureof the doctors who assisted at her conception.” Oliver O’Donovan (1984)

17. Thomas Torrance, Test-Tube Babies (1984) Responses to IVF in the mid-1980s “What is at stake is nothing less than the future of the human race, but what also at stake is the integrity of the scientific and moral conscience. . . Medical science has brought us to an ultimate boundary beyond which a civilised and God-fearing society committed to the sanctity of marriage and the structure of the human family, may not go.”

18. Responses to IVF in the mid-1980s A number of church bodies took an uncompromisingly negative view of IVF Pontifical Academy for Life (2004) ARTs“constitute an unworthy method for the coming forth of a new life, whose beginning depends . . . in large measure on the technical action of third parties outside the couple and takes place in a context totally separated from conjugal love.”

19. Responses to IVF in the mid-1980s • Board of Social Responsibility of the General Synod of the Church of England (1985) supported most of the recommendations of Warnock Report • Up to 14 days human embryos not entitled to same respect and protection as embryo implanted in uterus • Accept use of surplus IVF embryos in research

20. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 • The science has moved on dramatically • Is theological debate of 2010 different from that of 1987? • Little has changed; those who accepted IVF tend to accept PGD etc; those who saw IVF as entering illicit divine territory are appalled at subsequent developments

21. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 • Roman Catholicism • Donum Vitae (1987) – IVF rejected because of use of artificial means to achieve conception • Dignitas Personae (2008) – does not challenge artificiality; human life is personal from conception onwards; protects dignity of embryo • Other reproductive techniques rejected on a variety of grounds

22. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 • Roman Catholicism • ICSI - domination of technology • Embryo freezing – embryos may be harmed • Freezing of oocytes – permits ARTs • PGD – eugenics • Embryo destruction – injustice • Embryo donation – illicit family relationships

23. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 Shannon and Walter, The New Genetic Medicine(2003) Willing to wrestle with new scientific findings Individual not present until 2-3 weeks after fertilization

24. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 “[w]hile the preimplantation embryo contains the appropriate genetic information for the organism’s development, that genetic information is not necessarily associated with a specific individual and cannot, therefore, claim moral privilege through such an association. The genetic uniqueness is associated with what is common to all – human nature – not a particular individual because such an entity does not yet exist” Shannon and Walter (2003)

25. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 • The early embryo is valuable due to its human genetic code and genetic uniqueness • The preimplantation embryo has premoral value • Allow embryo research (including embryonic stem cell research and therapy; therapeutic cloning)

26. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 Seek to reinterpret traditional theological viewpoints in the light of contemporary scientific understanding Do not wish to weaken the religious tradition, but speak in contemporary terms

27. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 Celia Deane-Drummond Concerned about the gap opening between official pronouncements and pastoral care Problems alleged without empirical assessment Alternative approach: recovery of prudence within ethic of feminist care

28. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 Ann Marie Mealey Criticizes outdated physicalist version of natural law, and excessive concern with ‘eugenic mentality’ Should lay groundwork for responding to developments and protecting ‘common good’ All three contributions wish to make Christian faith more relevant in contemporary biomedical debates

29. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 • Protestantism • Hostility towards ARTs often taken as representing the Christian view • Hui, At the Beginning of Life: Dilemmas in Theological Ethics (2002) • Evangelical, and intensely conservative • The human soul is present at conception • Concerned that science has replaced God

30. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 • opposition to any technological inroads into the reproductive process • ARTs force God to accept the child when he has not given that gift of life • human embryo research is unacceptable

31. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 Science and theology are staring one another in the face Many evangelical exponents of prohibitionist stances; embryo protection framework Stephen Bellamy (2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill) Populist evangelical literature opposes PGD, tissue typing, cybrid and hybrid embryos Complete protection from fertilization onwards

32. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 Absolutist view of status of in vitro embryo No unanimity on IVF Cautionary approach; alternative evangelical views ignored Pastoral concerns: apparent certainty and rigidity of absolutist views creates unnecessary heartache for those faced with infertility Impression that there is only one orthodox evangelical view

33. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 “We […] must be unashamed and unafraid for […] unbiased medical technology is on our side. Time is on our side. The Bible is on our side. God is on our side. And if God be for us, who an be against us?” Other views are ignored Christian position is prohibitionist one Kendall (2002)

34. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 “Too many Christians turn a blind eye to the destruction of embryos in IVF and to the harsh and grotesque reality that this technology also means the destruction of human life ” IVF out of bounds for faithful Christians Mohler (2008)

35. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 • Ted Peters, Sacred Cells? Why Christians Should Support Stem Cell Research, 2008 • Three contending frameworks: • embryo protection • human protection • future wholeness

36. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 God’s eschatological call to become what we are destined to be Gifts given us by God Human dignity conferred by God; we are to confer it on others; relationalin character Future orientation: dignity is derived more from destiny than from origin Conferring dignity on someone who does not yet experience it, is gesture of hope

37. Responses to the ARTs post-2000 Beneficence– what groups might benefit from embryo research? Melding of divine action and human response Dignity is not regarded as an automatic outworking of genetic characteristics Theological framework – God’s love for all; eschatological hope based on God’s promises The good of others in the community may trump the good of embryos

38. Exploring the borderlands Traditional perspective: err on the side of caution Technology intrudes into every facet of our existence Do we have theological quibbles when we take a pill to subdue pain or bring blood pressure under control? The quality of our lives is improved compared with 100 years ago

39. Exploring the borderlands BUT Some of the effects of the ARTS may be dehumanizing (note responses to Robert Edwards’s 2010 Nobel Prize) Fragmentation of families Deeply troubling commercial pressures Problems due to instant gratification; serving one’s own interests; need to accept givennessand giftedness of our existence; lack of concern for poor and neglected

40. Exploring the borderlands Thedevelopmentof ARTs is scientifically driven and their applicationis community driven A Christian commitment should be directed at arguing for ways in which the technologies should be applied rather than in whether the technologies should or should not exist See people in their wholeness and treat them accordingly: with respect, dignity and preciousness in God’s sight Have to learn to live alongside those with different outlook from ours (including within Christian community)

41. Exploring the borderlands “Just as you do not know how the breath comes to the bones in the mother’s womb, so you do not know the work of God, who makes everything.” Ecclesiastes 11: 5 Profound uncertainties Perplexity of our beginnings is set to increase, not decrease

42. Addendum on the role of the Bible Concepts not from Scripture precautionary principle genetic uniqueness of embryo dangers of procedures population imbalance lack of cures from embryo research Pragmatic and scientific

43. Addendum on the role of the Bible Additional theological arguments: Christian ethics based on God’s revelation Christian hope over medical intervention made in God’s image all human life equally valuable Children special gift from God value of embryo determined by God’s grace God does not improve upon what he has already done

44. Addendum on the role of the Bible Two characteristics: open to competing interpretations fail to provide specific options for bioethical practice Different theological positions reflect differences in scientific understanding and interpretation as much as differences in theological worldviews Changes in theological perspective following changes in the science?