Sárospataki Füzetek 14. (2010)
2010 / 1. szám - TANULMÁNYOK - Rusthoven, James J.: Mit jelent embernek lenni a technika korában? Református keresztyén megközelítés.
What it means to be human in our technological age? a Thomist physician and William F. May, a Protestant theologian and ethicist. While Pellegrino has boldly done formative work in developing a philosophy of medicine focusing on developing virtuous character among caregivers13, May has worked to promote a covenantal ethic based on human/human relationships in medicine that mirror the covenant between God and humankind.14 Inspired by the work of May and several other formative Christian bioethicists, I have begun to work on developing a Reformed Christian covenantal ethic as an alternative to principles-based ethics. In the next section I would like to illustrate how the dominant principles-based ethical framework in biomedical ethics attempts to address the issue of human moral status. This will be followed by a view of human moral status that I am developing through a biblical covenantal ethic, illustrating particularly how it applies to the moral status of the unborn and other vulnerable human beings. Human Moral Status Seen through a Non-Christian Ethical Framework In the most recent addition of Frindples of Nomedical Ethics published last year, Beauchamp and Childress devote a new chapter to the moral status of human beings.15 In keeping with their overall approach to biomedical ethics, they present five theories that have been used as the basis for determining moral status. One theory relies on human properties such as genetic make-up or human parentage. A second theory relies on cognitive properties such as how well a person can reason or make judgments. Moral agency is the basis of a third theory. Autonomy of the human will is the central premise in this theory while a fourth theory uses sentience, the consciousness to experience pain and pleasure, as its main criterion for humanness. A fifth theory is based on the formation of relationships for defining humanness. Beauchamp and Childress consider each theory to be inadequate on its own and advocate for finding some composite framework composed of elements of each theory. However, they provide no foundational moral justification for their choices outside of the pursuit of moral agreement for such a framework among bioethicists and other morally serious persons. They do acknowledge the current lack of consensus regarding criteria for humanness. But rather than exploring the reasons for these differences and the depth of beliefs that is behind these differences, they consider religious difference to be too divisive and rather look for consensus. Appling their principles-based approach, they hope that different views will simply dissipate after long discussions of rational justifications for individual positions. They believe that a common morality accessible through rational discourse will allow diverse views to gradually cohere and the answers to questions regarding moral status to become self-evident with such rational discourse. The worldview out of which Beauchamp and Childress develop their moral framework is widely believed and practiced in secular medical ethics in Western 13 Bulger, R. J. and J. P. McGovern (eds.) (2001) Physician Philosopher: The Philosophical Foundation of Medicine: Essays by Dr Edmund Pellegrino (Charlottesville, VA: Carden Jennings Publishing Co.). See also Pellegrino, E. D. and D. C. Thomasma (1996) The Christian Virtues in Medical Practice (Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press). 14 May, W. F. (1983) The Physician Covenant (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press). 15 Beauchamp and Childress, op.rit., 64-98. SÁROSPATAKI FÜZETEK 61
