Bioethics

Saint Mary¶s University School of Health Sciences Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

Compilation of  Bioethical Issues In Partial Fulfillment of the Course Requirements in Bioethics

Submitted to; Miss Beverly Olarte, RN Instructor 

Submitted by; Realyn L. Bu-ucan BSN-3B

1.

HOMOSEXUALITY

Introduction Sexual interest in and attraction to members of one's own sex. Female homosexuality is frequently referred to as lesbianism; the word gay is often used as an alternative for both ³homosexual´ and ³lesbian,´ though it may refer specifically to male homosexuality. At different times and in different cultures, homosexual behaviour has variously

been

encouraged,

approved

of,

tolerated,

punished,

and

banned.

Homosexuality was not uncommon in ancient Greece and Rome, particularly between adult and adolescent males. Jewish, Christian, and Muslim cultures have generally viewed it as sinful, although many religious leaders have said it is the act, and not the inclination, that their faiths proscribe. Homosexuality, a term created by 19th cent. theorists to describe a sexual and emotional interest in members of one's own sex. Today a person is often said to have a homosexual or a heterosexual orientation, a description intended to defuse some of the long-standing sentiment among many Westerners that homosexuality is immoral or  pathological. Homosexual practices are not afforded any special moral or psychological significance in many other cultures. A survey of 190 societies around the world (1951) reported

that

homosexual

practices

were

considered

acceptable

behavior

in

approximately 70% of them. The description of homosexuality as an orientation also suggests, as some contemporary theorists have argued, that the boundaries between "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are not necessarily rigid. Some studies have indicated that most individuals have some erotic interest in both sexes, whether overt or not. The open expression of interest in both sexes is known as bisexuality. Transsexuals are distinguished from homosexuals by the feeling that they are really members of the opposite sex. Male and female homosexuals are now commonly known as gays and lesbians, respectively.

Critique Psychiatric

theories of homosexuality have included the following: that

homosexuality is a regression to the earliest (oral) stage of development; that most families of homosexuals are characterized by an overprotective mother and an absent father; or that homosexuals fear engulfment by a dominant mother in the pre-Oedipal phase. Some authorities have suggested that homosexuality may be an expression of  nonsexual problems, such as fear of adult responsibility, or may be triggered by various experiences, such as having sexual relationships with members of one's own sex at an early age that prove to be very satisfying. Arguments regarding the roots of lesbianism include disappointing heterosexual love experience, a father who displays distaste for  men who express interest in his daughter, and memories of abusive relationships with men.

Personal Reaction On my own perception being homosexual is not bad as long as you dont undergo transexual operation, because for me changing something on the natural body structure of  human for the purpose of beautification alone is immoral. Now a days homosexuals like gays and lesbians are growing in number maybe because it is in their genes or because of  their environment, and we can observe that hre in our school.

Some people degrades

homosexuals some say they are immoral because they do not accept what they really are. For me being moral does not depend on what we wear, what we say, or what how we apear  to others, it is on how we treat others or how we deal with them. As long as those homosexuals do not do anything that can degrade or hurt others. Homosexuals should not be judged to be immorals, its not a sin to be true and to be what they want to be.

2. STEMCELL TECHNOLOGY

Introduction   According to national intitutes of health, ³a stem cell is that has the ability to divide nor self replicate for indefinite periods-often troughtout the life of the organism. Under the right conditions, or given the right signals,stem cells can give rise or  differentiate to the µmany cell types that make up the organism, that is,stem cells have the potential to develope into a mature nerve cells.´

Based on records, american scientists have started conducting experiments with human embryonic stem cells since 1998. It was Dr.james Thomson of the university of  Wisconsin who made the first succesful experiment in developing a technique in isolating and growing the cells into humaan heart cells. Another scientist of note is John Gearhart of John Hopkins University who succeeded in growing nerve cells from stem cells. But because of several strong objections of this scientific upheaval, then

President

george Bush called for a halt in funding of this activity sometime in 2001.

Critique The drive of determined scientist to harness the potencies of stem cells to cure illness cannot be stopped by the strong mandates of the church. Inasmuch as spiritualists, religious, theologians, including conservative moralist are one in reproving the harvest of pluripotent stem cells from embryos, these scientist now gain more than enough spectrum of craetivity. The pro-lifers and conservatives protestants go passionately along with the catholic church in this campaign to respect the sanctity and and dignity of human life starting from its embryonic stage up until death. This means trhat even this embryos are considered surplus, yet, they have the potency to develop into fetuses.

  As has presented, heathcare providers must be sure enough not to tolerateor  approve of procedures that entail the kiliing of innocent pre-implan tation embryos brought about by experiments on human stem cells. Thew health care providers can actively do this by reporting to authorities, like local church leaders and other  dependable persons who have shown dedication and interest in defending the sanctity of the human life. Ion addition, the haelth care providers must decline from giving assistance, or any form or aid, to those who are engaged in doing the same in the hospital where he/she works. This move will coldly alarm those concern that what they are doing is not favored by others, especially those faithfuls of the catholic faith including our brothers and sisters in the christian faith. Personal Reaction If harvesting pluripotent stemcells from surplus embryos is not morally acceptable, then using skin cells and reprograming them to become stemcells that are useful for curing illness, including, infertility, among others, clearly slips away from the contours of moral restrictions.

Consequently, the vatican gives an approval to the

growing of stemcells from skin cells. What the church upholds resolves around the principle that life must not be prolonged or safeguarded in expense of another life. Since embryos are, to the catholic church, already human beings/persons, then the act of  taking thepluripotent stemcells from embryo is equivalent to murder. The catolic church is nit concerned about technical processes. It reacts only if a process threatens human dignity. For me personaly I agree with the concern of the catholic church that stem cell technology is immoral since it intervin with natural process of life, it tresspasses the humans free will to its own because it destroys or kill onother life for the sake of the other. This act is not far different from murder . so, even though it is considered legitimate, for me its still immoral and unacceptable.

3. TRANSEXUALISM

Introduction Transsexualism is when an individual identifies with a gender that is different from their biological sex. A medical diagnosis can be made if a person experiences discomfort as a result of a desire to be a member of the opposite sex, or if a person experiences impaired functioning or distress as a result of that gender identification. Transsexualism is stigmatized in many parts of the world but has become more widely known in Western culture in the mid to late 20th century, concurrently with the sexual revolution and the development of sex reassignment surgery. It remains controversial, however.

Discrimination

and

negative

attitudes

towards

transsexualism

often

accompany certain religious beliefs or cultural values. There are cultures that have no

difficulty integrating people who change gender roles, often holding them with high regard, such as the traditional role for 'two-spirit' people found among certain native  American tribes.

Critique The Mutilation of the Body is Wrong.The Bible views damage to the body as bad and deliberate mutilation as an insult of great magnitude.

Paul

teaches that the body is

the temple of the Holy Spirit and should be protected, 1 Cor. 6:12-20. The extreme hormonal manipulation and surgical mutilations involved in transsexual operations are not justifiable unless the health of the homosexual were at stake; and it is not. The psychological well being of the individual is as specious an argument here as it is in the defense of abortion upon demand for the physical well being of the mother. Transsexuality is living a lie, a foolish fantasy. Neither biblical exegesis nor  research science gives credibility to the transsexual's insistence that he or she is the opposite sex caught in an opposite sex body. The transsexual thoughts, desires, feelings amount to nothing more than an elaborate, expensive, moral-mental delusion. That a lie can be so addictive should not surprise the Christian ethicist. Romans 1 and 6:12-18 clearly teach the addictive nature and power of sin. Eph. 4:17-19,22 teach that the deceitful desires which lead to a greedy lust for more impurity have a progressive quality. Not to call this sin "sin", especially when it is within yourself, is to be caught in the web of self-deception. Medical science has helped raise this delusion to new heights. Now surgery renders a body outwardly closer to this moral-mental delusion. Yet, the genetic witness remains! If transvestism is abhorrent to God, then a radical surgical "dressing up" is far worse. If the lesser sin of transvestism is an abomination, then transsexual operations must be super abomination. Personal Reaction Here in transexuality/ transexualism, i consider it immoral because in this act humans specifically the homosexuals who undergo transexual degrading human dignity and at the same time disrespecting the sanctity of life.For me those kind of people are selfish, they love their body to much to the poin that they will change the blessings that God the creator have given them. They don¶t conside the laws that they may violate and the effects of the procedure that they will under go. So for me it is highly immoral, being homosexual is moral but changing thier sex organ is a different thing.

4. PREMARITAL SEX Introduction Pr emar ital

sex'  (also called Fornication) is sexual intercourse engaged in by

persons who are unmarried. It is generally used in reference to individuals who are presumed not yet of marriageable age, or between adults who will presumably marry

eventually, but who are engaging in sexual activity prior to marriage. It is considered a serious sin in fundamentalist Christianity and Islam. In many Asian cultures, premarital sex is banned to prevent unwanted pregnancy in women. The term is not generally applied to a couple which is in a committed long-term relationship such as cohabitation.

Critique The Bible refers to premarital sex as fornication. That's a word we don't hear  much these days, so what does it mean? Fornication is sexual intercour se between  peo ple who ar e not marr ied t o eac h other . The only distinction the Bible makes between

premarital sex and adultery is that adultery involves married persons while fornication involves those who are unmarried.

Premarital

sex is just as much of a sin as adultery

and all other forms of sexual immorality. They all involve having sexual relations with someone you are not married to. The Bible explains, "«The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body" (1 Corinthians 6:13). Verse 18 of this chapter goes on to say, "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body." Galatians 5:19 speaks the same, "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity«" Ephesians 5:3 says it most plainly, "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of  any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people." From these verses, we see that the Bible promotes complete and total abstinence from premarital sex. In discussing premarital sex, we often focus on the "recreation" aspect of it. Yes, sex is pleasurable. God, our Creator, designed it that way. It may be hard to think of God creating sex, but He did! In God's plan, sex was designed for married couples to enjoy the pleasure and excitement of sexual relations. The Bible talks about this in Hebrews 13:4, "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will  judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." God created sex to be fun, exciting, and pleasurable. At the same time, though, it is clear in the Bible that God restricts sexual activity to married couples. Why is this? Yes, sex is pleasurable, but in God's view, the primary purpose of  sex is not recreation, but rather re-creation. In other words, sex is for reproduction. God does not limit sex to married couples to rob pleasure from those who are unmarried. Rather, God commands against premarital sex in order to protect unmarried people from unwanted pregnancies, from children born to parents who do not want them, and to protect children from parents who are not prepared for them. Imagine, for a moment, a world without premarital sex. There would be no sexually-transmitted diseases, there would be no un-wed mothers, there would be no unwanted pregnancies, there would be no abortions, etc. According to the Bible, abstinence is God's only policy when it comes

to premarital sex. Abstinence saves lives, protects babies, gives sexual relations the proper value, and most importantly abstinence honors God.

Personal Reaction Premarital

sex has no moral grounds, it is against God, and it is unsafe physically

and emotionally. Although sex is pleasurable, it is designed by God to be enjoyed by two married people. Morality is a factor for many people when deciding whether or not to have premarital sex. After all, the messages we receive from most TV shows and movies these days tells us "everyone is doing it." In light of today's permissive attitude, our peers may think we're weird to even question it. But maybe there is something inside us, like a voice in our head, that is making us uncertain about whether or not sex before marriage is a right or wrong action. Many people refer to this voice as their conscience. How can we know if our "conscience" is right?

People

all around the world look to the Bible as a moral or religious book, so let's

see what it says about premarital sex.

Premarital

sex maybe pleasurable but it si

immoral you maybe a teen ager or young adult sex before marriage is immoral. Why not wait? Isn¶ it nice to go to the altar being virgin and pure.

5. GENETIC ENGINEERING Introduction Gentic engineering means direct intervention in the genetic make up of a living being. Genetic engineering involves the taking of genes from the normal location in one organism and either transfering them else where or putting them back into there original source in different combinations. The idea of genetic enginering stared as early as 1966, when the augustinian monk Gregor Mendel discovred the laws of heredity. At teh turn of  the century, Mendel studies made significant contribution to the discovery of human genes. Gentic engineering means direct intervention in the genetic make up of a living being Some individuals have argued that crossing species boundaries is unnatural, immoral, and in violation of God¶s laws. This argument presumes that species boundaries are fixed and readily delineated. However, a recent issue of the

  n  a  Amer ic

  reflects that the notion of species boundaries is a hotly debated J our nal  of  Bi oethi cs

topic.

Some bioethicists have pointed out there are a variety of species concepts:

biological, morphological, ecological, typological, evolutionary, phylogenetic, to name a few. All of these definitions of what a species is reflect changing theories and the varying purposes for which different species are used by individuals.

Critique Several bioethicists have called for a ban on species-altering technology that would be enforced by an international tribunal.

Part

of the rationale for a ban is the

concern that such technology could be used to create a slave race, that is, a race of  subhumans that would be exploited. In April 1998, scientists Jeremy Rifkin and Stuart Newman, who are both opposed to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), applied for  a patent for a ³humanzee,´ part human and part chimpanzee, to fuel debate and to draw attention to potential abuses on this issue. The United States

Patent

and Trademark

Office (USPTO) denied the patent on the grounds that it violated the Thirteenth  Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits slavery. The decision has been appealed, but the appeal has not yet reached a court, and it may never do so. The appeal may be dismissed on other technical grounds.  Although the USPTO has permitted the extensive patenting of bioengineered life forms and human DNA, the question that has been raised by Newman and Rifkin¶s application is one that will not be resolved easily: What constitutes a human being? A genetic definition is not very helpful, given the variability of gene sequences between individuals. A species definition is controversial, as mentioned earlier. If we look to characteristics for a definition, there are many characteristics that humans share with primates and other animals. If we create a being that has the ability to speak and perhaps even reason but looks like a dog or a chimp, should that being be given all the rights and protection of a human being? Some bioethicists argue that the definition of  ³human being´ should be more expansive and protective, rather than more restrictive. Others argue that definitions that are more expansive could be denigrating to humanity¶s status and create a financial disincentive to patenting creations that could be of use to humanity. The question of whether or not the definition should be more expansive or  more restrictive will have to be considered as courts, legislatures, and institutions address laws regarding genetic discrimination. Personal Reaction Basing on what we are learning genetic engineering is a great help in preservation of life, one example is the repair of abdominal and neural tube defects while the fetus is still inside the mothers womb. The function of genetic engineering here is they prevent the occurence of the defect the child may carry as burden as he/she grows.This act may violate the natural what is important is the can save and preserve life. This advocates not only human life preservation but also human dignity. So, for me genetic engineering is moral.