Genetic engineering: a Catholic persepctive on creating an ethical framework

Prenatal screening

In the Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation (Donum Vitae 1987), the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith argued that "if prenatal diagnosis respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human foetus and is directed toward its safeguarding or healing as an individual", then the procedure can be considered morally licit by applying the ethical Principle of Double Effect. It also argued that the procedure must not involve disproportionate risks to the unborn child. The main concern that the Catholic Church holds is that such prenatal procedures may be linked to abortion. The Church views as immoral an expectant mother submitting to prenatal testing for the purpose of eliminating a foetus which is affected by malformations or which is a carrier of hereditary illness. Such purposes are interpreted as having much in common with the policy of eugenics. However, some ethicists such as the Australian, Peter Singer have posed a counter-argument: is it ethical or moral knowingly to bring into the world a severely physically or mentally deformed child?

The foundational ethical principle to consider remains: respect for the individual. Perhaps we need to look at a holistic conception of the human person rather than focus on what physically defines them. In other words, we need to consider human personhood in its entirety, that is, in all its physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual and social dimensions.

Cloning of human beings

Australia, along with much of the international community, currently bans the cloning of human beings. The same technology that produced Dolly the sheep conceivably could be utilised in the cloning of humans. From a scientific view, this practice would be considered dangerous. First, as the genetic material from the donor is already of a certain age, the DNA of the cloned human would too be aged and there would be a real possibility of premature aging as well as an increase in genetic deformities. This already had been noted in Dolly. Secondly, from an ethical and religious perspective, it must be asked whether such procedures are in accordance with God's will and the dignity of human life. Given the almost universal ban on such genetic procedures, ethicists, politicians, legislators, and scientists currently have grave reservations about the morality and efficacy of such actions.

The human stem cell debate

Human Stem Cell research and therapy are divided into two possibilities: the use of embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells. Stem cells by definition are pluripotent; that is, they are the most primitive cells in the body, which give rise to all other cells. Theoretically they can be transformed into any of the 200 or so different cells that form tissue and organs in the human body.

Unfortunately, the present use of embryonic stem cells poses several problems. As they are derived from very early embryos, by definition they will not be used in therapeutic treatments of the donor, and thereby will elicit rejection reactions commonly found in normal transplants of foreign tissue. For those who regard life as starting from conception, that is, the initial fertilisation leading to the formation of the zygote and subsequent mitotic divisions, this amounts to destruction of human life. However, the ethical counter-argument is that many do not accept this definition regarding life's origins. In addition, the banning of this research may inhibit or block completely important scientific research that could lead to new treatments and cures of various diseases. The use of human embryonic stem cells in such research, continues to divide the community as to whether their use is ethical.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is evident that the science of genetic engineering and manipulation is already available. It will shape society now and in the future. A number of genetic applications are possible and the morality of each application must be examined in the light of the specific circumstances under which genetic intervention is utilised. Theologians and ethicists have a vital role to play in proclaiming the dignity and the rights of each human person. They should endeavour to understand the complexities of the emerging sciences and must work closely with philosophers, jurists, scientific bodies, medical associations and the providers of genetic technologies, so that workable guidelines, codes of ethics, and regulations are enacted that will prohibit certain negative and destructive applications of the technology.

It is important to realise that the benefits of genetic technology should benefit humanity in areas such as individual medical therapy and the improvement of food availability, particularly in economically deprived areas. Genetic engineering for corporate power, or as a means of warfare, or of depriving certain individuals or groups from insurance cover must be seen as morally suspect. All uses of this technology nevertheless need to be monitored by responsible governments, legislators, and scientific organisations with a view to maintaining safeguards against possible detrimental effects of the technology. However, this may not be enough. It is equally the responsibility of each competent individual to be morally aware when confronted with issues related to genetic engineering; this then enters into the domain of ongoing moral, ethical and theological education.