Marisa Covington
BUSI 506: Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals
Discussion Board Forum 1
Liberty University
As the United States healthcare delivery system continues to evolve and new information
provides additional resources to drive development and innovation, knowledge has allowed
healthcare professionals and healthcare providers to offer healthcare services, treatments, and
solutions that were previously unavailable. Moreover, developments in collaborative efforts
across cultural and language barriers have provided healthcare professionals with a wealth of
knowledge unlike anything ever seen or done before. Though these efforts have been greatly
praised throughout the arena of healthcare delivery services, questions have arisen surrounding
the ethics in the use of such information. Collins (2006) makes the statement that knowledge has
no intrinsic value morally, but that the way the knowledge is used requires major ethical
responsibility. A major concern regarding the use of knowledge is evident in the longstanding
debate surrounding stem cell research and its use in cloning. As a society, Christian’s members
of this society, and Christian healthcare professionals, you will be challenged to make your best
ethical judgments on how you and everyone should proceed with this knowledge.
The Ethical Issues for Society
Within recent years, there has been an increased interest in stem cells and understanding their
much potential through testing, research, and experiments. As technology continues to advance,
it has enabled healthcare professionals to focus on further developing the processes needed to
clone cells, tissues, organs, and even full living beings, animals thus far. This portion of
innovation is where the line of ethics becomes a major point of differing opinions between
healthcare professionals and providers, the patients they serve, and the general public. The most
notable and well-known case of cloning is Dolly the sheep. Using the genetic material derived
from that of an adult sheep, Dolly was produced and caused a mass frenzy in the media as well
as opened the door for a major ethical debate throughout the world. Many of the discussions
surrounding this even included concerns regarding uses of this knowledge and technology to be
militarized for evil, destruction of the nuclear family, and that individuals in the future could
abuse this technology by creating clones for infertile mothers (Wadman, 2007). These are just a
few examples of the many ethical arguments against cloning and all of them have some morally
sound reasoning behind them. Research has also shown that the general public strongly opposes
reproductive cloning, but they are more flexible in their beliefs regarding the medical use of this
technology to treat a wide variety of illnesses and they generally support stem cell research. The
article goes further to predict that the general public will be extremely susceptible to information
provided in the media considering the understanding of this topic is minimal (Nisbet, 2004).
Depending on the information received by the general public through various media outlets,
there could be either a positive or negative ethical shift related to their views on cloning.
Ethical Issues for a Christian Healthcare Professional
Moreover, another major argument to note is if it is ethical for healthcare providers to utilize this
knowledge and at what point does science and medicine go too far. At what point does medicine
overstep the natural processes of life in a way that compromises patients, the general public, and
their beliefs? A recent article states that the professional oath for healthcare professionals
addresses a major tenet within the healthcare delivery system, which is to do no harm and guides
many ethical decisions. The article goes on to further state that both preventable and medical
error derived harm is difficult to prevent and though the oath denotes the intention to avoid harm,
this goal is nearly impossible in practice by healthcare providers and professionals (Abbasi,
2019).
With that in mind, all healthcare professionals, especially those that are Christ-centered, should
strive towards protecting the health and safety of patients even if it opposes the direction many
other healthcare organizations and professionals are going relating to stem cell research and
cloning. The English Standard Version of Psalm 100:3 states "Know that the Lord, he is God! It
is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture." Each person
is uniquely designed with an identity that God has created and interference with the divine
process of creation is a major ethical dilemma for healthcare professionals and the work they do
daily. Furthermore, the English Standard Version of James 2:26 goes on to say, " For as the body
apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead." To many Christians, if the
aforementioned Dolly cloning happened to a human, then their view would be that the individual
is without a soul considering the healthcare professionals that conducted the cloning process
"created" that being. As the scripture states, an individual created without a spirit is likened to
that of the dead. As Christ-centered healthcare professionals, for the work that is done to be
ethically sound it must align with the word of Christ.
Should Christians Participate in Such Efforts
Furthermore, as a healthcare conscious individual, how are you expected to proceed with the
knowledge that there are several ethical and theological arguments against the science of
cloning? Additionally, taking a stance against stem cell research related to cloning has potential
effects that are not yet fully understood by both the medical and scientific community as it
relates to the growing interest and utilization of stem cells. This creates an ethical dilemma for
anyone, but especially for those of the Christian faith. However, Collins (2006) places
responsibility on everyone as individuals when he states that each person has an innate
knowledge of what is right and wrong. If there is a valid ethical and theological argument against
cloning, then a Christian should not only avoid taking part in this process but should also feel
convicted by their own ethical barometer. The English Standard Version of James 4:17 states
that "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." As a Christian,
it would seem that involvement in the processes of cloning would be unethical. However, we
have seen that beliefs do not protect individuals from legal consequences relating to denying
healthcare services such as vaccinations or medications especially as it relates to children.
Evidence has shown that parents are more likely to receive legal action against them if the illness
that their child has is considered medically curable and the parent refuses medical treatment for
the child (Shields, Miller, Yelderman, 2018) As stem cell and cloning research continues to grow
exponentially, there may be a day were treatments are as engrained in the everyday healthcare of
the human population in the likes of vaccinations or over-the-counter medications. Failure to
utilize these resources has the potential to greatly impact families.
In conclusion, the advances within the healthcare delivery system surrounding stem cell research
and their use in the cloning process have caused a series of ethical and theological debates. As
healthcare providers, there is major ethical responsibility within that role to ensure what you are
doing adds value and protects society without doing harm. As a Christian, it does not appear that
support or involvement in cloning would be ethical and would be in contrast to your ethics of
right and wrong. As more information and evidence is derived from well-designed research
studies, then the general public, healthcare professionals, and Christians may be able to
reevaluate their current stance on the topic, but as it stands cloning is unethical.
Issues in medical ethics are not just relevant for Christian health professionals who have to make
difficult decisions in a world which is increasingly antagonistic to Christ and his Gospel; they are
relevant to pastors and church leaders who have to counsel church members in difficult situations
and also for any ordinary Christian who is seeking to live in obedience to God's Word.
Medical ethics are 'obligations of a moral nature which govern the practice of medicine -
principles of conduct prescribing what we ought to do. In the not-too-distant past, at least in
Western society there was a broad consensus about what these principles should be. They were
formulated in such ethical codes as the Hippocratic Oath and its modern restatement the
Declaration of Geneva and despite the fact that such codes were framed and adopted by secular
bodies they were nonetheless broadly consistent with the Bible. As recently as the beginning of
the century there was a lot of agreement among health professionals about what constituted
ethical behavior. This is no longer the case.
Why is ethical decision making more difficult?
Both medicine and society have changed dramatically over the last century in ways that have
made ethical decision-making much more complicated than before.
First, medical knowledge and technology have advanced astronomically. The general practitioner
managing a case of lobar pneumonia at the turn of the century did not have to make a decision
about whether or not to give antibiotics. There weren't any. We now have surgical operations for
the patient with an aortic aneurysm, ventilators for the premature infant with respiratory distress
and phenothiazines for the schizophrenic, and we have to decide whether to use them.
Second, because of the influence of the mass media, medical knowledge is less and less secret
and more and more public property. An increasingly educated public knows what technology is
available and is demanding it. This increased scrutiny is making our decisions more visible and
our practice more accountable.
Third, the specialisation that has resulted from the increase in knowledge and technology
available has meant a move to team decision-making. The solitary doctor at the bedside has been
replaced by a team of subspecialists, a hierarchy of medical staff, a host of paramedical
specialties and a vast array of technical and management personnel - each expert in his or her
own small field.
Fourth, financial and resource constraints in the face of rapidly advancing knowledge and
technology have meant that we have more acute decisions of resource allocation to make. What
should our priorities be - heart transplants or hypertension, ventilators or venereal disease,
geriatrics or gene therapy?
Finally, and most importantly, all this is taking place in a moral vacuum. We live in a post-
Christian society where there is no agreement on the underlying basis for decision-making. The
plurality of religious traditions, cultural backgrounds, world-views and ideologies makes any real
consensus impossible. Tolerance is paraded as the supreme virtue in such an ethical environment
but tolerance of mutually contradictory views is both ludicrous and unworkable when decisions
have to be made. It's simply impossible to please all of the people all of the time - so whose view
should prevail?
These factors combine to create a minefield of ethical conflicts for Christian health professionals.
Every new advance in knowledge and technology creates new dilemmas and our patients have
higher expectations. We have to make our decisions in an atmosphere of increasing financial
constraint, increasing public scrutiny and in consultation with those who increasingly do not
share our faith.
How does the world make ethical decisions?
Before looking at the Bible itself, it's useful to review the ways that non-Christians make ethical
decisions, not just so that we can understand others better, but because many Christians fall into
exactly the same traps in the ways they come to hold their own opinions about ethical issues.
What criteria do people use?
Gut feeling - It feels right
The first is gut-feeling. 'This is right because it feels right'. In a society as obsessed with the
pursuit of pleasure as our own it is inevitable that some people will believe that their emotions
should rule their behavior. Of course, having feelings is part of being created in the image of
God (Gn 1:27), but problems arise when they are made the sole basis for decision-making. They
can be perverted as in the case of the sadist who derives pleasure from inflicting pain on others.
They may disagree - witness the passion felt by those on both sides of the abortion debate, and
they may change. The girl who wakes up with a hangover and pregnant after a one night stand
knows with certainty that what 'felt so right' wasn't right at all. 'The heart is deceitful above all
things' says Jeremiah (Je 17:9). It is no guide to ethical conduct.
Reason - It's logical
The second is reason. 'This is right because it's logical'. If not the heart, why not then the mind?
Can human reason be our basis for ethical decision-making?
Part of the problem with reason as a tool for decision making is that reason never acts in
isolation. For example, in making a decision to treat a patient with pneumonia with antibiotics
we are making a number of prior assumptions, not least that it is morally right to kill millions of
bacteria in order to save the life of one sick person.
Reason alone won't help us in finding the answers to questions like this. If the underlying
assumptions we start from are wrong then we will reach the wrong conclusions even if our
powers of reason are faultless our conclusions will be flawed - and whose powers of reason are
faultless? Even the best of minds are not always reasonable. God gave us minds to think but
reason also has its limitations.
Conscience - But I don't feel guilty
The third is conscience. 'This is right because doing it doesn't make me feel guilty'. Our capacity
to feel guilt is a reminder that we are fallen creatures, and there is no doubt that God can use
conscience for our good. 'Train a child in the way he should go' says the writer of Proverbs (Pr
22:6). However conscience also has weaknesses as the only criterion for making moral choices.
It may become blunted. Many of the Nazi doctors who presided over the killing of millions
during the Second World War felt they had done nothing wrong. They were nonetheless judged
to be guilty. On the other hand there is the danger that conscience may become oversensitive as
in the case of the neurotic patient who is paralysed with feelings of guilt despite having
committed no sin. Consciences also need educating. 'There is a way that seems right to a man but
in the end it leads to death' (Pr 14:12). Men are capable of 'suppressing the truth' (Rom 1:18) and
'exchanging the truth of God for a lie' (Rom 1:25).
Consensus - Everybody's doing it
The fourth is consensus. 'What is right is what most people believe is right'. The desire not to
appear different is a strong one, but majority opinion may not be correct. It was once believed
that the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that there was no connection
between smoking and lung cancer. Every major scientific discovery initially has to challenge the
status quo of incorrect consensus opinion. Furthermore popular opinion varies across cultures.
Female circumcision is regarded as barbaric in England and civilised in parts of Africa - but
opinions about abortion vary in the opposite direction. Consensus opinion may change over time
within any one culture. Euthanasia for handicapped children, and the demented elderly is
perfectly acceptable in Holland today, but during the Second World War many Dutch physicians
willingly chose imprisonment in preference to being involved with it. Democracy may in fact
just be a euphemism for mob rule. The Bible sternly warns us 'Do not follow the crowd in doing
wrong... do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd' (Ex 23:2). Consensus opinion, after all,
crucified Christ.
References
Abbasi, K. (2019). First do no harm: the impossible oath.
Collins, F. S. (2006). The language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief (No. 111).
Simon and Schuster, 239, 243.
Nisbet, M. C. (2004). Public opinion about stem cell research and human cloning. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 131-154.
Shields, T. D., Miller, M. K., & Yelderman, L. A. (2018). Relationships between religious
characteristics and response to legal action against parents who choose faith healing practices for
their children. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 10(1), 88.
The Holy Bible. English Standard Version, Psalm 100:3, James 2:26, & James 4:17.
Wadman, M. (2007). Cloning special: Dolly: a decade on.
