Necessary Roughness

A NYT editorial argues that twice before morals have gone up against science, and science “won”. The author cites two cases: monks treating illness in the 11^th century and smallpox inoculation in the 18^th century.

Both of these arguments seem like straw men to me. The author writes:

Medical progress has stirred religious and moral objections throughout history - objections that were overcome as the benefits of medical advances became overwhelmingly obvious. In the 11^th century, European church leaders warned monks that treating illness with medicine showed such a lack of faith in God that it violated holy orders.

I suppose others may have to help me out regarding 11^th century monastic orders, but monks generally secluded themselves for the purpose of spiritual perfection and to pray for the people (Wiki: Christian monasticism). I’ve not had any success finding this first incident. The thought of someone being forbidden to heal boggles the mind, especially since there was a little bit of healing done in the New Testament. A reference to back up this claim would have been handy.

The author then writes:

The religious authorities of Jenner’s day viewed smallpox inoculation as an affront to God and man. A widely published British sermon was titled “The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation.” American clergy warned that inoculation usurped God’s power to decide the beginning and end of life.

I find plenty of references to this sermon by Rev. Edward Massey in 1772, but no copies of the actual text. The theology of Massey and others that God uses disease to punish an individual’s sin is askew, almost karmic. Disease, hurricanes, terrorism, etc., are all a general consequence of sin, but who gets what tribulation operates through the natural world through natural consequences. If AIDS were a special punishment by God on homosexuals, then we wouldn’t have Ryan White. God has given us medical personnel with their talents to help us relieve some of these general consequences of sin.

An objection to embryonic stem cell research does not automatically equate a person with theologically inaccurate members of the eleventh and eighteenth centuries. It begins with an understanding, Biblically sourced or not, that life begins at conception. We are getting better and better at saving children with lower and lower birth weights. A zygote given the proper conditions will grow. Separate sperm and egg will not. Attachment to a uterus is a process for the zygote to grow, but it doesn’t fit in a definition of life. We are not still joined to Mom, and we say that babies are individually living even when they are joined to Mom. Life beginning at conception is a logical conclusion whether or not you count Psalm 51:5, Matthew 1:20, etc., as evidence.

The ethical discussion about embryonic stem cell research is a good thing to have, and I believe the proponents of this behavior have done themselves a disservice by asking for federal funding rather than getting the money and doing the research themselves. It is easier before any ESCR discoveries are made to ban the practice, rather than allow them to discover something and have the market support vivisection.

Update, 9:00pm: Bob Waters calls it religious bigotry.