New College Lectures 2009
John Wyatt, professor of Ethics and Perinatology (mother-fetus specialist) at University College London has been a treat this year. His series of lectures titled ‘Bioethics and Future Hope’ speaks knowledgeably from a medical professional’s point of view, but also unashamedly from a professing Christian’s point of view.
I attended last night’s lecture, but couldn’t go tonight or tomorrow. But the master of New College has promised that the mp3s will be going up on their website by weeks end – thank God for technology! (John also gave out summary notes – really considerate!)
In last night’s talk ‘Bioethics and Creation’, John outlined 2 distinct worldviews: one of materialism where the pursuit of biomedical technology becomes a quest for self-transcendence, i.e. to understand and control ourselves through science. The autonomy assumed by humans in this materialistic worldview means that the ultimate ‘good’ is to maxmise individual preferences and choices. One outworking of this worldview from his background is the frightening statistic that 90% of fetus diagnosed with down syndrome is aborted (British law allows for abortion at any stage if ’significant problems’ is detected).
The other worldview, the worldview of the Bible, speaks of a creation made with, and for, the purposes of God. Thus bioethics is necessarily connected to how the Bible views humanity – especially the way we are made. John argues that we are image bearers of God, to reflect something of His being. Hence relationality (not rationality) defines humanity, along with all the frailty and limitations to do with been made of dust. At this point John is clear to stake the claim that inter-dependence (or ‘mutual burdensomeness’) is not weak or degrading, but part of God’s design. This point (I think) is to add to his own bioethical position:
‘Even a patehtic, vulnerable and potentially injured baby is still one of us, a unique and wonderful being with an individual narrative and a future purpose’.
A few really cool things I learnt from John’s lecture and Q&A afterwards:
- ‘We do not make or produce babies [thats very materialistic way of thinking], we beget them. That which we make is a product of our will and is under our control. But what we beget is a gift from our being, and is equal to us in dignity and status. We do not create our children, we accept and respect them as mysterious and wonderful others, equal to us in human dignity’.
- What about the situation that the baby must be aborted to save the mother’s life? John first clarifies that in his career he has probably a handful of such cases, and the statistics is 1% of the 200,000 abortion in the UK is in that life-threatening category. Secondly his own position is that death has intruded into that situation (and its not in the doctor’s control), and the only thing doctors are doing is directing that death – either to the mum or the bub. I think John is saying in this case abortion is an acceptable outcome. However, most abortions (the 99%) is introducing death into a situation where death isn’t part of the picture in the first place.
- John also made an astute observation. It seems to him that the natural order of things is the parents fall in love with the baby, and then find out his/her faults in the next 18 years. But with medical technology that can screen potential for diseases and polymorphisms, the process is reversed: we can now know all the faults in an ‘objective’ (i.e. clinical/distant) way before we get to know the person. And then the decision to abort is based on these test results. He also asks – what do you do with God-like knowledge? So what if the test results says there is a 30% chance of Alzheimers or 30% of cogenital heart failure?
A few things that I (and college friends) pondered after the lecture:
- If sex is both unitive (i.e. enjoyment and bonding) and procreative (i.e. baby producing), then what is the appropriate place of contraception? John’s answer seems to imply that one must view the couple holistically – that is, not in each and every sexual intercourse, but the totality of their attitude towards children. But to press this further, why not in each and every sexual intercourse? Or is the assumption that sex is both unitive and procreative not quite Biblical? Perhaps sex is primarily unitive and only secondarily procreative?
- John used a very powerful imagery where he stated that a baby is the love of the parents incarnated. For a description that incorporates our scientific knowledge: ‘DNA is the means by which a unique love between a man and a woman can be converted physically into a baby’. I don’t have any problem with the scientific imagery, but claiming that the baby is love incarnate feels like John is drawing an analogy to Jesus as God’s Love Incarnate. Is that a valid analogy?
- John seems to have claimed that surrogacy (and other artificial means of making a baby) separates the love-making and the baby-begetting, and therefore contrary to the created order. But can one say that the advance in technology enhances the creation order by allowing parents to have babies where they might not been able to (e.g. due to infertility)?
