Posted on 12/12/2008 12:06:09 PM PST by annalex
| Dignitas Personae (The Dignity of a Person) |
| Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith |
| Dignitas Personae, an Instruction on ethical issues arising from biomedical research, was published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 12 December 2008. The Instruction defends the life of unborn human beings, created in the image of God, and provides guidance on how to respect human life and human procreation in our scientific age.
|
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Though this is from the Catholic Church, it deals with universal truth regarding true human dignity.
Bookmarking for later reading.
Thanks for the ping.
You’re welcome, great article and explanation of Dignitas Personae.
The discussion covered both cosmetic changes (like eye color) and health defects (such as handicaps and vision correction). I did not see any distinction drawn between the two during that discussion.
Beside destruction of embryo, even in therapeutic use we should distinguish between a health defect and cosmetic improvements.
What would be the problem with making a genetic change, for cosmetic purposes, to a naturally conceived zygote? Is it the child's lack of choice that makes it immoral, or is it the change itself that is morally problematic?
If it's the cosmetic change itself that is immoral, does this also mean it would be immoral for me to shave every morning and afternoon of my adult life? Or for me to get some kind of advanced permanent laser hair removal? (Assuming that it was for purely cosmetic reasons and there was no health necessity for being clean shaven).
I see a difference here in genetic manipulation of a zygote versus shaving laser hair removal.
Technologically there is a huge difference. But what is the difference that makes one immoral, and the other (presumably) morally acceptable?
To answer my own question, I guess you could say it's wrong to make *some* permanent alterations without a person's consent. That is, if a trait is the type that can be altered later in life then it might be wrong to lock someone in to just one choice. Like in my facial hair example, I think you can argue that it would be wrong to deprive your unborn son of the choice to grow a beard, because as an adult he may decide that he'd like to have one.
Is that why the Church would oppose (most? all?) cosmetic genetic changes? Or are there other reasons as well?
I think that the change itself is morally problematic absent some disease. Therapy means that something is broken as compared to the divine design. For example, a heart valve is not where it is supposed to be. Cosmetic is when the human parent wishes to alter the design alrady given the child, for example stature or eye color.
When a human being is groomed, e.g. receives a hair cut or a shave, there is no interference in the design. God gave us tools with which we groom out children or ourselves.
It is sinful to interfere in the act of creation. It is not sinful to remove and obstacle, such as a disease, even on some stage of creation, or to alter appearance of the finished product, such as grooming.
I was pointing out that shaving, cosmetic surgery, etc., are quite different than the genetic and reproductive science discussed, and therefore leaning off topic.
remove and obstacle -> remove an obstacle
I think your reasoning here does affect the dignity of the person.
But my reading, and limited capacity, gives me a more complex view. You start with the basic morality - dignity of the person, the sanctity of life, natural law, not becoming God in governing human creation, etc. Applying these, you get into more complex guides on the science.
The way I see it, imperfectly and somewhat partially of course, is that intent comes in quite strongly also. I’d point to four points in the article above:
1) Before Implantation.
“Preimplantation diagnosis…is directed toward the qualitative selection and consequent destruction of embryos, which constitutes an act of abortion... By treating the human embryo as mere ‘laboratory material’, the concept itself of human dignity is also subjected to alteration and discrimination…Such discrimination is immoral and must therefore be considered legally unacceptable…”
2) Therapeutic, after licit pregnancy.
Procedures used on somatic cells for strictly therapeutic purposes “are in principle morally licit…
3) Genetic engineering to “improve” the human race.
With regard to the possibility of using techniques of genetic engineering to introduce alterations with the presumed aim of improving and strengthening the gene pool, it must be observed that such interventions would promote a “eugenic mentality” and would introduce an “indirect social stigma with regard to people who lack certain qualities, while privileging qualities that happen to be appreciated by a certain culture or society; such qualities do not constitute what is specifically human. This would be in contrast with the fundamental truth of the equality of all human beings which is expressed in the principle of justice, the violation of which, in the long run, would harm peaceful coexistence among individuals…
4) ‘Genetic Engineering’ in a larger scale.
“Finally it must also be noted that in the attempt to create a new type of human being one can recognize an ideological element in which man tries to take the place of his Creator” (n. 27).
If you look at questions with all of this in mind, I think answers to specific questions become more easily. If your motives and methods avoid the restrictions, then you are on more solid ground. An additional point, as far as cosmetics, is the risk to the child in order for what could be a trivial or vain purpose.
I worry more about the broader risks. As man becomes more powerful scientifically, he quickly outpaces his wisdom and morality. I don’t think we can or should make decisions affecting the orbits of the universe, the weather of the planet, or the creation and evolution of species. Or, if we do, we should be extremely wary. God and nature are full of unintended consequences for the proud and the vain.
So, I’m quite conservative on these issue; heck, I oppose cosmetic surgery except in extreme cases. :)
thanks for your reply..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.