A lot of medical technology is of the type that causes Christians to wonder where lines need to be drawn. For example, this morning, I was watching our local news. They have that little line of constant news at the bottom, and one of the flashes that came across it talked about the supposed successful use of embryonic stem cells to restore some people with a degenerative eye condition. I would imagine that this is viewed as a great success in the medical community, as one of their theories may seem to be in the process of being proven.
And yet, I still find myself uncomfortable with that. Really, it boils down to one word in the above paragraph that makes me uncomfortable. Embryonic stem cells. In other words, to bring about healing in these people, a life was cut short before it even grew large enough for the mother to know or to feel. For some reason, the medical community has seized upon the thought that embryonic stem cells are the solution, and not other stem cells, which can be found in the body.
Here is where I find one line that most Christians will probably agree with. If the saving or healing of another person comes at the expense of another's life, then I have a serious problem. This is why so many in the medical community don't look at an embryo as a living being. It soothes their consciences that they are doing something for the good of mankind, and not at the cost of a living being.
I will admit that there are many lines in terms of medical technology that are difficult to define. Surgery seems to be a very acceptable use of God's creativeness and healing. Most treatments don't cross over into us "playing God", but make use of God's creativeness. And yet, every once in a while, as a Christian, I find myself uneasy when I hear of some new breakthrough. But in general, one fairly firm line that I draw is that of not taking a life to save or restore another person's life.
I realize that this is not going to be a consistent line among Christians, and then among people who have different faiths and beliefs than we do. But I also think that failure to discuss it leaves a great deal more confusion out there.
And yet, I still find myself uncomfortable with that. Really, it boils down to one word in the above paragraph that makes me uncomfortable. Embryonic stem cells. In other words, to bring about healing in these people, a life was cut short before it even grew large enough for the mother to know or to feel. For some reason, the medical community has seized upon the thought that embryonic stem cells are the solution, and not other stem cells, which can be found in the body.
Here is where I find one line that most Christians will probably agree with. If the saving or healing of another person comes at the expense of another's life, then I have a serious problem. This is why so many in the medical community don't look at an embryo as a living being. It soothes their consciences that they are doing something for the good of mankind, and not at the cost of a living being.
I will admit that there are many lines in terms of medical technology that are difficult to define. Surgery seems to be a very acceptable use of God's creativeness and healing. Most treatments don't cross over into us "playing God", but make use of God's creativeness. And yet, every once in a while, as a Christian, I find myself uneasy when I hear of some new breakthrough. But in general, one fairly firm line that I draw is that of not taking a life to save or restore another person's life.
I realize that this is not going to be a consistent line among Christians, and then among people who have different faiths and beliefs than we do. But I also think that failure to discuss it leaves a great deal more confusion out there.
No comments:
Post a Comment