Revising for exams and the issue of religion and science popped into my head. The reality is that they just do not gel well together and conflicts often arise. And yet it is those two things – science and religion - that are probably the most important things in our lives. They define our existence. I often wonder whether the decisions I have made or will make in my career are influenced by my religious outlook. For example;
Abortion –
Quite a few religions are against abortion as basically it’s seen as murdering an innocent life. Even medical professionals agree that taking a life is ethically wrong so there’s no dispute there then. Science even defines a point at which it is acceptable to do so and when not to – it makes logical sense. My issue isn’t the point of termination in the pregnancy, it’s whether it should be performed at all and at what cost? Certain religions do have ‘get-out’ type clauses if you like. If the mothers’ life is in danger, victims of abuse or rape, drunken one stands, financial family issues, emotional instability – but who’s gives that final say; whether we should abort or not? You may be saving a life; but at what cost – social, financial, emotional, moral? Who decides?
Designer babies –
A process by which a child is perfected so that it exactly matches the parent’s specification. Eye colour, hair colour, predisposition to certain illness; they can all be manipulated by altering the genes/alleles of the zygote (fertilised egg and sperm). Aside from the ethical issues concerned i.e. playing god, what about the scientific/logical issues? Do we really truly know the affects of such alterations? The theory on survival of the fittest, by altering variation in the natural population what will be the long term effects? If everyone survives, won’t that place more strain on the health services and other resources, resources that are already being tested to their limits? Personally there’s something that doesn’t sit quite right with this area, for me anyway – both religion and moral standing.
IVF –
The process of providing medical assistance to couples who are unable to conceive naturally. There is some medical intervention but in my opinion a near enough natural process. This I don’t seem to have any issues with personally or that affects my religious beliefs. However others may disagree. If conception doesn’t occur naturally, then maybe it wasn’t meant to be in the first place. If the couple really wanted a child then they could adopt or foster children who have been abandoned. IVF also increases the chances of multiple births which could be unexpected and may lead to abandonment or issues of financial security for the family concerned.
Organ regeneration –
The process and knowledge used to replace congenital defects without having to wait for a suitable human donor to become available. This is one topic that I am in agreement with both ethically and religiously; however as with anything there are some downsides. There are issues of not caring for what we’ve been given i.e. bad diet, habits, abuse; and promoting the culture of replacing organs whenever we need. The ‘frankenstein’ feeling – people emotionally don’t’ feel comfortable with themselves as the natural factor is missing. What about the long term effects of having altered DNA in our bodies; will they get passed onto future generations or perhaps revert back to wild type mutations instead of having a controlled outcome?
Stem cells –
The so-called miracle cure for everything from baldness to reversal of certain disease processes, another topic that I’m in favour of. With regards to my religion, I feel this area is ok however it should be used with caution. In theory it seems like a fantastic idea as it reduces the introduction of foreign molecules/materials. By using the body’s own cells to manufacture/ repair defects leads to less chance of rejection or complications. And yet there’s still so much that we don’t know; it’s like we’re still at the front doorstep so to speak. The human genome project completed in 2001 was a great step forward, but it’s working out a way to use that knowledge effectively that is the most crucial part. The perfection of the differentiation and cultivation techniques is required and that requires skill and time… as opposed to rushing ahead to make waves and beating the competition.
Donors –
Blood cells have an average life cycle of 120 days and so health services require regular donors in order to keep their supplies up to date. Organ donors again are a good thing but perhaps clearer guidelines are required in order to avoid misunderstandings. For example quite a few people may carry around donor cards, but forget to sign them. Therefore when the crucial moment comes, confusion may take over the process and cause unnecessary delays. Maybe we should be promoting a system where making organ donation is perhaps a compulsory process and that people would have to opt out if it if they weren’t comfortable – the opposite of what we have at the moment. However I feel that choice of freedom should be respected as certain religions also have some constraints on organ donations and similar areas. It also brings up the issue of people that have a second child if there are no suitable living donors to save the first child – that is something that I'm not too sure of. But then again I’m not in the same position as those people, it’s far too easy to say things when you’re not going through it yourself.
There are so many more topics to discuss i.e. animal testing and so on. To conclude, I guess as with anything, science has its’ pros and cons as well but we need to be mindful of people’s personal feelings and religious outlooks. It goes without saying that each case should be assessed on their own merits and not as a 'one rule fits all'.
Abortion –
Quite a few religions are against abortion as basically it’s seen as murdering an innocent life. Even medical professionals agree that taking a life is ethically wrong so there’s no dispute there then. Science even defines a point at which it is acceptable to do so and when not to – it makes logical sense. My issue isn’t the point of termination in the pregnancy, it’s whether it should be performed at all and at what cost? Certain religions do have ‘get-out’ type clauses if you like. If the mothers’ life is in danger, victims of abuse or rape, drunken one stands, financial family issues, emotional instability – but who’s gives that final say; whether we should abort or not? You may be saving a life; but at what cost – social, financial, emotional, moral? Who decides?
Designer babies –
A process by which a child is perfected so that it exactly matches the parent’s specification. Eye colour, hair colour, predisposition to certain illness; they can all be manipulated by altering the genes/alleles of the zygote (fertilised egg and sperm). Aside from the ethical issues concerned i.e. playing god, what about the scientific/logical issues? Do we really truly know the affects of such alterations? The theory on survival of the fittest, by altering variation in the natural population what will be the long term effects? If everyone survives, won’t that place more strain on the health services and other resources, resources that are already being tested to their limits? Personally there’s something that doesn’t sit quite right with this area, for me anyway – both religion and moral standing.
IVF –
The process of providing medical assistance to couples who are unable to conceive naturally. There is some medical intervention but in my opinion a near enough natural process. This I don’t seem to have any issues with personally or that affects my religious beliefs. However others may disagree. If conception doesn’t occur naturally, then maybe it wasn’t meant to be in the first place. If the couple really wanted a child then they could adopt or foster children who have been abandoned. IVF also increases the chances of multiple births which could be unexpected and may lead to abandonment or issues of financial security for the family concerned.
Organ regeneration –
The process and knowledge used to replace congenital defects without having to wait for a suitable human donor to become available. This is one topic that I am in agreement with both ethically and religiously; however as with anything there are some downsides. There are issues of not caring for what we’ve been given i.e. bad diet, habits, abuse; and promoting the culture of replacing organs whenever we need. The ‘frankenstein’ feeling – people emotionally don’t’ feel comfortable with themselves as the natural factor is missing. What about the long term effects of having altered DNA in our bodies; will they get passed onto future generations or perhaps revert back to wild type mutations instead of having a controlled outcome?
Stem cells –
The so-called miracle cure for everything from baldness to reversal of certain disease processes, another topic that I’m in favour of. With regards to my religion, I feel this area is ok however it should be used with caution. In theory it seems like a fantastic idea as it reduces the introduction of foreign molecules/materials. By using the body’s own cells to manufacture/ repair defects leads to less chance of rejection or complications. And yet there’s still so much that we don’t know; it’s like we’re still at the front doorstep so to speak. The human genome project completed in 2001 was a great step forward, but it’s working out a way to use that knowledge effectively that is the most crucial part. The perfection of the differentiation and cultivation techniques is required and that requires skill and time… as opposed to rushing ahead to make waves and beating the competition.
Donors –
Blood cells have an average life cycle of 120 days and so health services require regular donors in order to keep their supplies up to date. Organ donors again are a good thing but perhaps clearer guidelines are required in order to avoid misunderstandings. For example quite a few people may carry around donor cards, but forget to sign them. Therefore when the crucial moment comes, confusion may take over the process and cause unnecessary delays. Maybe we should be promoting a system where making organ donation is perhaps a compulsory process and that people would have to opt out if it if they weren’t comfortable – the opposite of what we have at the moment. However I feel that choice of freedom should be respected as certain religions also have some constraints on organ donations and similar areas. It also brings up the issue of people that have a second child if there are no suitable living donors to save the first child – that is something that I'm not too sure of. But then again I’m not in the same position as those people, it’s far too easy to say things when you’re not going through it yourself.
There are so many more topics to discuss i.e. animal testing and so on. To conclude, I guess as with anything, science has its’ pros and cons as well but we need to be mindful of people’s personal feelings and religious outlooks. It goes without saying that each case should be assessed on their own merits and not as a 'one rule fits all'.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment