i

m
. .
.
God's Law and
Medical Ethics
by John M. Otis
It is quite apparent to the astute obser-
ver that American society is in a state
of great flux with regards to its ethical
practices. Certain practices that many
Americans would have considered im-
moral thirty or forty years ago are
by many today as acceptable behavior.
For example, there has been a revolu-
tion in American perspectives concern:-
ing sexual behavior. Divorce is a grow-
ing problem in our society. Nation-
wide, one out of every three marriages
end in divorce. Years ago it was a social
stigma to have a divorce. This is not to
say that marriages were necessarily any
happier than today; it simply means.'
that people saw divorce as a failure and
a disgrace and tried to avoid it. Today,
this stigma is no longer present and
couples are quick to terminate their mar-
riages.
There has been a remarkable change
in public attitudes toward pre-marital.
sex. Years ago most Americans would
have seen such behavior as immoral. A.
couple should wait until marriage, for
this is only proper. Today, pre-marital
sex is an acceptable social behavior in
its context." It is even encour-
aged in certain situations by some coun-
selors _in order to determine whether a
couple is sexually compatible. The
prisedly right context for pre-marital sex
is when the couple is in "love." This
mystical subjective feeling that is re-
ferred to is said to be the justification
for this behavior. Recently, Planned
Parenthood (I choose to refer to it as .
Planned Social Destruction andDegrada- '
tion) aired a commercial on television
John M. Otis is a
PCA minister
residing In
Roswell, Geo_rgla.
that promulgated such thinking. To
paraphrase the commercial, the advertise-
ment said that sex without "love" is
wrong; however, if you are going to
have sex then you might as well know
the facts. Contact your local Planned
Parenthood agency.
Thirty or forty years ago to become
pregnant out of wedlock was also a
social stigma. A very conunon solution
to this problem back then was for the
couple to get married. Or, if the girl
was young, such as a teenager, the
parents would send her off to have her
baby. Today's solution is much dif-
ferent. First, to become pregnant out of
wedlock is not seen so much as an im-
moral act but the unfortunate conse-
quence of the sexual encounter. One of
the most common remedies today is for
the girl to murder the baby by having
an abortion. We can see a shift over the
years in public opinion concerning abor-
tion. What was once unthinkable is
now acceptable.
How do we account for such a shift
in public attitudes? Can we say that the
generation of thirty to forty years ago
was more moral than today's genera-
tion? I really don't think so. It may be
true that the earlier generation was
operating from a quasi moral or biblical
ethic; however, this generation did not
have a sure footing in a biblical ethic.
Otherwise their children would not have
departed so radically from a biblical
moral standard. The problem is that the
older generation did not teach a biblical
ethic to its offspring. It did not teach
that right and wrong is determined
solely by God's Word. As in the day of
the book of Judges, there arose a genera-
tion that did not know God's law. The
parents failed to instruct their children
in the Law; hence, the children had no
biblical concept of morality.
Any time a society neglects or for-
sakes God's Law as its standard of
morality, there will always be horren-
dous consequences. We are merely reap-
ing what we have sown. Absolute law,
which is biblical law, does not shift
with time. Basically, the ethic that has
governed American society in this cen-
tury is twofold. There is the existential
ethic which is the ethic of sub-
jectivism. Each person's moral standard
is governed by what they "feel" is right
and wrong. In other words, each person
does what is right in his own eyes.
Then, there is the utilitarian ethic
which says that right and wrong is
determined by what the majority
believes. This supposedly is done for
the common good. It is the tyranny of
the majority. Both of these ethical
systems are rooted in a relativistic view
of morality. There is no absolute
ethical norm that is always binding
upon society. It can change with each
person and with public opinion.
These ethical standards lend them-
selves susceptible to the persuasive
arguments of even a minority. Public
opinion is fickle. It can change its mind
as soon as someone can convincingly
argue his case. This explains the shift
in the public opinion concerning abor-
tion. Certain influential segments be-
gan to argue that life does not begin at
conception and that a woman has a
right over her own body anyway. This
inaccurate and ungodly thinking won
the day. It is amazing to see how many
people, who support abortion, use this
line of thinking. It is obvious that this
is what they have been taught. When
society adopts such a relativistic moral
standard, it will inevitably sink to the
depths of moral depravity simply
cause natural man is totally depraved, as
the Bible teaches.
One of the most frightening aspects
of these ethical systems is manifested
in the medical profession. In one sense,
medical ethics is merely the extension
of the dominant ethics of the day. This
fact has terrifying consequences because
human beings begin to die at the hands
of those who are supposed to preserve
life. It is deplorable to see how many
doctors have succumbed to our society's
view of morality concerning the abor-
tion issue. Many doctors, who perform
The Counsel of Cbalcedon, March, 1988 ----------------------------Page 27
abortions, avoid the issue by saying
that the question of when life begins is
a philosophical or religious question,
which is of no concern to them. Those
doctors who are honest with the facts
must confess that human life biological-
ly begins at conception. The author of
this article was once a pre-med student
in college, having majored in zoology
and having taken courses in embryo-
logy. From a genetic viewpoint, I
learned that the fertilized egg is a new
human life.
The relativistic ethical standards that
are dominating our present medical pro-
fession have also led us to the accep-
tance of euthanasia (the killing of the
aged) and infanticide (the killing of in-
fants, usually with severe physical or
mental handicaps). There have been
those who supported abortion but who
have not been so eager to support
euthanasia and infanticide. Their ration-
ale has been that these last two prac-
tices are definitely the termination of
human life. However, public acceptance
of euthanasia and infantici de is a grow-
ing reality in this nation, just as abor-
tion was gradually accepted. It is a
frightening fact that many abortionists
have shifted their justification for abor-
tion. No longer are many denying that
human life begins at conception. Their
rationale for abortion is that there are
extenuating circumstances which justify
the killing of the unborn. Some of
these situations are: the family can't
afford another child, the child might
grow up in an abusive horne (isn't this
ridiculous - to avoid possible child
abuse later on you kill the child before
it is born), the child is not a wanted
child thus it will not be loved, and the
child might be born with a severe handi-
cap. Now the meaning and value of life
is dependent upon social factors. With
such devaluation of human life, who is
really safe? Nobody!
The practice of euthanasia and infanti-
cide is the logical culmination of a
relativistic ethical standard. Finally,
pagan man is consistent with his philo-
sophy of life. If prenatal life can be
justifiably terminated for certain social
reasons, then any human being can
ultimately be tenninated if it is in the
interest of the common good.
This ungodly ethical system has the
medical profession in a stranglehold.
One can only imagine what is on the
horizon in the medical world. Just
recently, the NBC Today Show featured
a segment with a Mexican doctor by the
name of Dr. Madrazo. The news item
was that this doctor had successfully
been a part of one of the first brain to
brain transplants. An adult, who was
suffering from Parkinson's disease,
received transplanted tissue from an
aborted fetus. The adult experienced ap-
parent relief. Some were hailing this as
a possible cure for Parkinson's disea.se.
The show's host, Bryant Gumbel, asked
Dr. Madrazo about the ethical ramifica-
tions of using aborted fetal tissue for
medical purposes. He asked the doctor if
he felt comfortable with this. The doc-
tor's reply was that he had no problem.
It has been a known fact to some that
the medical profession has been using
aborted babies for ghastly sCientific ex-
periments already. What we are seeing
is that murdered babies by abortion are
becoming excellent cadavers for medi-
cine. Now we have another good reason
for abortion - we can use their body
parts for medical cures. Isn't this won-
derful? From a biblical ethical standard-
God's Law - this is deplorable. From a
utilitarian ethlcal standard, what is
wrong with this? if great medical cures
can be found by using aborted fetuses,
then society's common good has been
served. Note the irony - human life is
murdered so that human life can be
spared. Such is the bankruptcy of think-
ing apart from God's law.
What can we expect to come in medi-
cal ethics? God forbid, anything is pos
sible. In recent years, the technique of
cloning has been the subject of great
interest. Cloning is the means of
asexually reproducing life. It has been
successfully accomplished in plant life
and among Amphibians, especially
frogs. How is cloning achieved? The
technical term for cloning is nuclear
transplantation. The procedure frrst re-
quires the taking of an egg from a
female and enucleating it (this means
the removal of the hereditary material
from the egg cell's nucleus). After this
is done, the nucleus from a body cell
from a donor is transplanted into the
egg cell's vacant nucleus. The astonish-
ing phenomenon is that the organism
that develops is a genetic duplicate of
the donor. It is an identical twin. This
is all accomplished asexually; without
the uniting of male spenn with the
female egg. the i n t ~ t in cloning
stems from the desire to learn how to
control ceil biology, says Dr. Robert
McKinnell, who has written extensive-
ly in this area. Perhaps the cures to
cancer and the secrets of aging lie in
understanding cellular biology, he says.
If lower animal life forms can be
cloned, what about human beings?
Thus far, human cloning has been the
primary interest of science fiction
writers. Is human cloning possible and
what purpose would it serve? According
to Dr. McKinnell and other specialists
in this field, it is highly possible to
clone a human being. The difficulty in
cloning h ~ beings is primarily one
of technology. The human egg is much
smaller than a frog egg, and the process
of enucleating a human egg would be
much more difficult. However, Dr.
McKinnell wrote in 1979 that the tech-
nology for this procedure was probably
already present. There have been some
reports that human cloning has already
taken place, but these reports are un
verifiable. Knowing man's curiosity and
the advances of medical technology
within the past nine years, probably
human cloning is secretly being done
among some biologists.
In his books on cloning, Cloning: A
Bwlogist Reports, and Cloning of
Frogs, Mice, and Other Animals, Dr.
Robert McKinnell discusses the ethics
of human cloning. It is interesting that
Dr. McKillilell probably comes from a
somewhat different ethical basis than
others in his field. He writes in his
book, Cloning: A Bwlogist Reports,
on page4:
"Although I might consider examin-
ing, studying, manipulating, and dissec-
ting a human egg untouched by human
spenn, l would, in fact, be loath to
contrive an experiment on an egg al
ready 'launched into life by ordinary bi-
sexual reproduction.' Such an egg could
Page 28 ---------------------------The Counsel of Chalcedon, March, 1988
be obtained by only the most heroic
means (fertilization occurs in the Fallo-
pian tubes). Removal of a fertilized egg
from the reproductive tract of a woman
could be considered an abortion. To
abort for purely experimental reason is
clearly unthinkable."
Why is Dr. McKinnell basically op-
posed to human cloning? He says on
page 103 of his book, Cloning of
Frogs, Mice, and Other Animals:
"To clone a human the fertilized egg
must be enucleated. That means that a
nascent human being must be elimi-
nated, and the elimination procedure, at
least during the developmental phase of
human cloning research, would have no
significance other than experimental."
The key concept is that for human
cloning to be possible the nucleus of a
fertilized egg must be replaced. At least
Dr. McKinnell recognizes the obvious
biological fact - replacing the nucleus
of a fertilized egg is the destruction of
at least a "nascent" human life. A
thoroughly Christian and biblical per-
spective would say that it is not a nas-
cent life but a full fledged human being
in its earliest stages of development.
Human cloning requires the murder of
one human being in order to create an
identical twin of the donor. For this
reason alone, the Christian must be
opposed to human cloning.
Why would scientists want to pursue
the avenue of human cloning? Obvious-
ly, many would have no scruples about
tampering with fertilized human ovum.
Some have postulated that human
cloning could achieve the creation of a
thousand Einsteins. However, Dr.
McKinnell astutely recognizes that this
is virtually impossible. Cloned human
beings would be no different than any
other person except for genetic identity
with the nuclear donor. To have an
exact duplicate, McKinnell says this
concerning the cloned human:
"His parents, his siblings, his school-
mates, his teachers, and all of his life
experiences would have to be recreated
to recreate him. That clearly is not pos-
sible."
Dr. McKinnell correctly observes
that a human being is more than his
genetic constitution. A human being is
the product of his genetic structure and
his environment
There is one area which probably of-
fers the most promise for human clon-
ing from a relativistic moral standard It
has to do with organ transplantation.
Dr. McKinnell even recognizes this as a
possible reason for cloning humans. He
says:
"The acceptance of tissue transplants
without rejection among members of an
isogenic group is a possible benefit of
the cloning technique. Rejection of
grafted tissue among individuals within
a clone does not occur, just as an
identical twin does not reject surgically
transplanted tissue obtained from its
genetically identical sibling. Because of
this. some writers have suggested that
one or more clones be fabricated to
serve as a source of spare parts for a
nuclear donor."
I am convinced that the unbelieving
medical scientist will see this as more
than sufficient reason to pursue human
cloning. Several years ago I saw a
science fiction movie entitled The
Clonus Horror. After watching it, I said
to my wife and others that this movie
was prophetic. In the movie script,
there was a secret operation called
Clonus that was being carried on in the
foothills of California. At Clonus,
human beings had being successfully
cloned. All of these clones had been
created and nurtured at this facility for
twenty years or so. They were com-
pletely isolated from the outside world.
Most of the clones had been surgically
altered so that they had mental de-
ficiencies. which would make them
more easily manageable. Only a few
clones were allowed to develop nor-
mally. The clones were put through
rigorous physical training in order to
achieve the optimum physical shape
possible for that clone. To graduate
from the facility meant that the Clones
were going to go to the USA. and this
became the dream of every Clone to go
to the USA. In reality, going to the
USA meant that the Clone was put in
suspended animation for spare organ
parts for its donor. In the movie, one of
the clones that was allowed to develop
normally accidentally escapes Clonus
and wanders into Los Angeles. Of
course, this causes a panic at Clonus
for this operation must remain a secret
at all costs. It turns out that a pro-
minent U.S. senator, who is a leading
candidate for the presidency, is behind
the whole project. Years ago he had a
clone made from him. The classic line
in the movie was when someone ques-
tioned this Senator as to the ethics of
cloning humans and using them as
spare organ parts. The Senator was re-
buked for sanctioning the murder of
human beings for such practices. The
Senator's reply was "these are not
human beings; after all, this offers us
practically immortality." In the end, the
project is exposed by the press and the
hOITor of Clonus is revealed The pre-
mise is that the public would view this
project with disgust
When I saw this movie, I said that
one day this would become a reality in
our ungodly society. Note the classic
line again - "these are not human be-
ings." Isn't it ironic that the abor-
tionists began by justifying their abomi-
nable murder by saying - "the fetus is
not a human being." Since the unborn
are considered non-humans by the Su-
preme Court thereby having no civil
rights under the Constitution, what is
there to stop the medical profession
from using fetuses as spare parts7
Knowing the track record of the Su-
preme Court. I wouldn't be surprised if
human cloning was successfully engi-
neered, the Supreme Court would
probably declare these clones as non-
humans in order to cater to a revolu-
tionary medical breakthrough.
Think about it We are already living
. in a society which operates from an
existential and utilitarian ethical stan-
dard- whatever feels right and whatever
The Counsel of Chalcedon, March, 1988 ----------------------------Page 29
is for the common good of the majority
is that which is morally right. Suppose
a future President of the United States
becomes chronically iii because of a de-
fective heart. His only hope for survival
is a heart transplanl It so happened that
there was a clone made of him who is
now age 21. Imagine replacing the
worn out heart of a 60 year old Presi-
dent with an identical heart of his clone
who is only 21. Why, it would be in
the national interest for this beloved
President to have a new heart
This unbiblical ethic is seeking to be
defended by scientists on the grounds
that the U.S. Constitution grants free-
dom of speech through the first Amend-
ment. fu the April, 1987 issue of
Bioscience there was a review of a book
by Ira H. Carmen. Carmen's book was
entitled Cloning and thE Cmutitution:
An Inquiry into Governmental Policy-
making and Genetic
Cannen believes that a scientist's en-
deavors are protected by Constitutional
liberty. He believes that scientific
research is covered under the freedom of
speech segment in the First Amend-
ment His reasoning? If scientific
speech is free expression, then the con-
duct of research that supplies that ex-
pression is "quasi-speech" and also a
civil liberty. Carmen says in his book
that government goes too far if it
attempts to dictate what experiments
should be conducted and what results
achieved. In an earlier chapter in his
book, Carmen goes to great length to
demonstrate that we have a "living Con-
stitution." Doesn't this sound familiar
to those liberal Constitutional lawyers
who say that the meaning of the
Constitution and its proper interpreta-
tion is a reflection of the present soci-
ety's beliefs? Thus, we have those
voices in the medical world who are
insisting that it is their Constitutional
freedom to perform all kinds of experi-
ments on human life.
Only in the Scripture do we fmd an
ethical standard designed to glorify our
Creator and one which promotes true
happiness and freedom. Natural man
does not want to submit to God's law
because he is in rebellion against his
creator. The unbeliever will diligently
search fOr any way to express his own
autonomy (self-law). The creation of
his own ethical system not only insults
his Creator, but it ultimately enslaves
men and leads to the demise of a cul-
ture.
American society is wallowing in the
mire of secular humanism. The autono-
mous ethic of secular humanism has
created a monstrous society which al-
lows the justification for the destruction
of the unborn. It has created a society
that has a declining value for the post-
natal human. We are now killing our
infants and aged. Is this freedom? Will
seeular humanism usher in the utopia
that l.t promises? Of course not! Only
when a society espouses a theonomic
ethic (God's law) will it insure its
tinuation with true justice and freedom.
The choice is always either autonomy
(self-law) or theonomy (God's law).
Probably the saddest thing of all is
the unsure trumpet that is being sound-
ed in so called "Christian" sectors. I am
grieved to see the theonomic ethic criti-
cized among evangelicals, especially
conservative Presbyterians. There are
those who actually shy away from the
idea of Christianizing America. There
are those who say that they do not
allow their Christianity to influence
their vocational practices. One promi-
nent Southern Baptist leader made such
a comment not too long ago. I contend
that if one is not interested in Chris-
tianizing America, then that perSon olr
Viously is in oppositiOn to the Great
Commission as found m Matthew
28:18-20. Jesus said to niak:e. discipleS
of all the nations. Making disciples
means that one brings into captiVity ail
thoughts to the obedience of Christ (ll
Cor. 10:3-5). It means that we teach the
nations everything that Jesus command-
ed as the cotn:mission states! Chris-
tianizing America is the carrying out of
the Great Conunission. The theonomic
ethic and the preached Gospel go hand
in hand. When men are saved out of
their sin and misery they will gladly
submit to God's law as the tneans of
their growth in holiness. If they don't,
then they have not experienced the
spiritua1 rebirth. This is what Ronians
8: 1-17 explicitly teaches.
If there is going to be a medical ethic
that honors the sanctity of human life,
then there is a desperate need for the
Christian community to pray to their
heavenly Father to have mercy on us.
There is a need to recover an ethical
standard for society that glorifies God
and grants man true liberty and happi-
ness. It is time to expose the bank-
ruptcy of humanistic ethical thlnking.
It is time to rally the soldiers of the
cross. It is time to sound the trumpet of
victory. It is time to encourage the
saints with the Lord's promise of vic-
tory. After all, how can a sovereign
God lose? (]
sa t.J/0'--

11
.J!M <10IN6 1"0 A tJAf' . .. MY f'WGS
1
WIU.. YOO! "
Page 30 ---------------------------The Counsel of Cbalcedon, March, 1988
!
I
I
:I
l\