1 4 .

CR IT ICA LLY CO N S I DE R O RT H O DO X AT T IT U DE S T O O N E IS SU E IN T H E FIE LD O F BIO E T H IC S

ORTHODOX BIOETHICS AND GENETIC

ENGINEERING
IN S T ITU TE FO R O RT H O DO X CH R IS T IA N S TU DIE S

M IN A M O N IR GA D

M O DU LE : A N ORT H O DOX A PP RO A CH TO P A ST OR A L LIFE

 ORTHODOX APPROACH TO ETHICS

The question of Bioethics represents a complex modern challenge for Christians. The huge
breakthroughs in the field of biology, and their medical applications, raise questions
regarding our attitudes towards humanity and creation. Bioethics covers issues related to
the beginning and end of life (Breck, 2005:38). It encompasses biological matters starting
from controlling the human embryo and penetrating into DNA characteristics during
procreation and cloning to the other end of the spectrum, with abortion and euthanasia.
These biological procedures have a clear sociological and moral impact.

By the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, social Darwinism,
which emanated from the Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, contributed to the creation
of the different, and even contradicting, ideologies that supported the ideas of minimizing
man’s destiny into what was called “the survival of the fittest”. This was even employed in
favor of destructive and racial ideologies with catastrophic consequences such as world
wars. Today man is facing social challenges when he finds that biological activities might
test, and sometimes re-conceptualize, fundamental concepts like life and death.

Here the response of Christian faith becomes crucial. However, Western and Eastern
Christianities represented two distinct approaches to the question of ethics. The Western
approach to ethics can be divided into different categories of ethics such as bioethics,
business ethics, environmental ethics and legal ethics. In contrast, the Orthodox Church has
its Doctrines, implemented in the right worship of the Holy Trinity, as the source of
principles governing its ethics as a whole (Engelhardt Jr., 1996:18). The major difference
between the aims of Orthodox ethics compared to the Western ethics can be consumed in
Engelhardt’s saying “Orthodox ethics offer deification rather than mere moral rectitude.”

The evident difference between Orthodox and Western theological approaches in the role
of reason and revelation was implemented in the western scholastic emphasis on the
juridical approach to theology, which appears in theories such as penal substitution, the
original sin and satisfaction theory (See Vlachos). These are based on human law in
conceiving the divine economy rather than underscoring the ontological structure of God’s
self-disclosure that is completely independent of human reason. This essay will set out the
Orthodox approach towards bioethics as one found, “ in God, the source of all nature and
reason, who is beyond our nature and reason” (Engelhart, 1996:115) and how it applies to the
challenges of modern life.

ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL BASIS FOR BIOETHICS

The starting point for Orthodox ethics is the “engagement with the persons of the Trinity
through a community united in Eucharistic communion” (Englehart, 1996: 109). Based on
this, the identity and value of humanity is derived from the ontological “relationality”
between God and humanity. The rigid biblical foundation of Orthodox Theology explains
this in the original words of the book of Genesis;
“And God said ‘let us make humanity in our image, according to our likeness … in the image of God he
created it, male and female he created them.’ ” (Genesis 1:26-27)

As the Orthodox biblical scholar, Eugen Pentiuc (2006: 8-9), explains, the use of the
Hebrew word shelem for image represents the unique and honourable presence of
humanity since shelem was a statue or an inscribed column representing the rule and
presence of the god or king in remote parts of the kingdom. This image reflects the Trinity
and, since the word Elohim is in the plural, we can understand how humanity has a unity in
nature and distinction in persons just as the Triune God; a unity in diversity.

The likeness of God has always been taught by the Church Fathers as living in accordance
with him. This dynamic vision “from glory to glory”(2 Cor 3:18) by partaking of Divine
nature (2 Pe 1:4) ends with what we are living for as God’s living breaths, that is,
deification in Christ who is God incarnate. St. Basil of Caesaria described mankind as “an
animal received the command to become God.”( St. Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 43) This
revelation is ultimately soteriological, and draws the ontological structure of life (Breck
2000: 25). Based on this, we can understand that humanity has an unconditional freedom
as the hypostases of the Trinity, and unlike individuality, with a communion of persons
who are in a relationship.

Because each hypostasis of the blessed Trinity is a personalized essence, then each human
person is not merely a bodily nature, but a complete unique and free person. This
anthropological view of man that is being glorified with deification in Christ cannot leave
any room for any manipulation with the dignity of humanity and the entirety of its
anthropological structure.

GENETIC ENGINEERING AND THE QUESTION OF HUMAN VALUE

This gives one explanation of why some ethicists believe that the genetic ehgineering could
jeopardize basic human rights. Genetic engineering (GE) is the process of isolating a DNA
fragment from the genome of an organism, determine its base sequence, and assess its
function. This includes gene manipulation, cloning, recombinant DNA technology, genetic
modification and new genetics. (Desmod S. T., 2008: 1) Although manipulating different
created life-forms violates their dignity, its application in manipulating human life is
particularly controversial today.

First of all, the idea of dealing with human genome as a sample in a laboratory and working
on it from the physical perspective only, as we see in the attempts to justify human cloning,
violates the fundamental anthropological balance of human nature according to the
Orthodox perspective. Man is not merely an intelligent animal or a biological mutation in
the genetic evolution. Manipulation by twinning human and animal materials and
manipulating the human embryo violates the integrity of human person. Each human being
is a complete and a unique person that should be treated with all respect given to that
person who was created in the image and likeness of God. That was declared in a statement
by the Orthodox Church in the spring of 1998.(Breck 2000: 197)

The freedom of the human being, who becomes the outcome of a genetically engineered
process, risks being stripped of his freedom and his right to have an opportunity to be what
he wants to be since he/she was formed according to certain aspirations of the parents. For
example, The Washington Post reported that a lesbian and deaf couple, Sharon Duchesneau
and Candy McCullough, decided to have a deaf child since they believe that “Being deaf is
just a way of life,” they also believed that deafness is a sort of culture and they want to
transmit it to their own child. To achieve this they looked for a sperm donor with five
generations of deafness in his family and they found one and they got their deaf son,
Gauvin (J. Sandel, Michael 2007). Although that was not positively welcomed by the
readers of the newspaper, it raised a question regarding the right and freedom of that boy.

In another case, an infertile couple wanted to pay around 50,000 dollars for an ovum of a
donor with qualities, such as a high SAT score and sporting qualifications (Sandel, 2007: 3-
4). Although it’s different to the former case, it is still hard to justify since being “designed”
by the parents in this way strips him/her off the right of absolute freedom, and will always
be reminded that he/she started life through a commercial process to obtain
characteristics that were paid for.

The question is where do we draw the line? A larger scale use of this technology could
potentially be employed by totalitarian regimes in order to produce groups of people with
special features. Michael (2007: 12) argues that societies can produce deadly fighters with
twinned genes with animals and warns of “superhuman scenarios”. Such “designed
children” can be sold as products with special features or used by regimes and states for an
abnormal racial superiority. These generations will be treated as consumed products since
not all genetic interventions are passed down the generations as gene therapy of
nonproductive cells, such as muscles and brains, work by repairing or replacing defective
genes.

EXCEPTIONS

In these ways, the negative implications would undermine the sacredness of human life by
offering human DNA as a product for what Karl Rahner calls the heartlessness of the
market. In pluralist societies the reception of such behavior is varied from one group to
another. This does not necessarily mean should throw genetic engineering technology
away entirely. The positive applications in the field of “Genetic Therapy,” which involves
both the screening of prospective parents to determine whether their children risk
inheriting any genetic disorders with prenatal or postnatal intervention to correct such
disorders (Breck, 2000), could be argued to be in harmony with the Orthodox approach.
 CONCLUSION

The complexities of the issue are recognized in Orthodoxy and set out in UNESCO’s
Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, which states that:
while research on the human genome and the resulting applications open up vast prospects for
progress in improving the health of individuals and of humankind as a whole . . . [it is imperative] . . .
that such research should fully respect human dignity, freedom and human rights. (cited in Wuger
and Cuttier 2008: 294)

With such benefits and risks for humanity at stake, this matter is still debatable and
meeting what’s called “moral exceptions” in trade policies, according to World Trade
Organization, (Wüger and Cuttier, 2008). But the Orthodox perspective of human values
cannot reconcile with the concept of providing humanity for trade. The process would put
the anthropological structure and human values at stake, as Breck ( 2000) points out by
saying:
“because it places determination of human life as well as human qualities and characteristics – i.e.
human soul- in the hands of men rather than God” (p. 198)
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Breck, John (2005). Stages on Life’s Way, 1st edition. New York: St. Vladimir Seminary Press

Breck, John (2000). The Sacred Gift of Life, 2nd edition. New York: St. Vladimir Seminary Press

Engelhardt Jr, H. Tristram, (1996). Living Orthodoxy in the Modern World, 1st edition. UK: Redwood
Books.

Nicholl, Desmod S. T., (2008). An Introduction to Genetic Engineering, 2nd edition. UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Pentiuc, Eugen J., (2006). Jesus the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible¸ 1st edition. New Jersey: Paulist Press

Sandal, Michael J., (2007). The Case Against Perfection, 1st edition. Massachusetts: The Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press.

Vlachos, Hierotheos . The Difference Between Orthodox Spirituality and Other Traditions, (Available
Online: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38037957/The-Difference-Between-Orthodox-Spirituality-
and-Other-Traditions-Hierotheos-Vlachos)

Wüger, D. and Cottier, Thomas, (2008). Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, 1st edition.
UK: Cambridge University Press.