Should we have used or should we use medical information/data from the Nazi experiments? Yes, I know this is not embryonic research, but they do parallel the same ethical question. As we all know, Nazi Germany did not value the human lives of the Jewish people (and other human lives for that matter). At the end of the war, during the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, twenty doctors were charged with War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity where the details of human experiments were divulged in detail. So in ethics classes, one must decide: Does the end justify the means? Does the final knowledge and potential solutions it may provide justify the means by which they were obtained? Can we simply “murder” others in the name of science and research? And secondly, should a moral person (or a Christian) use the benefits of anything gained immorally? Should a Christian take advantage of any (legal) medical benefit gained unChristianly or immorally or unethically? Please note that there is a difference between legality and morality. While something may be legal, it doesn’t mean that it is ethical, much less Christian. Also note that I believe that without the Christian God and the absolute truth He or the Bible provides one is left with a subjective and relative ethical standard, which, again, to me, is innately contrary to ethics. But on the other hand, what is biblically ethical may be different from what is Christian. For example, though a poor one, drinking is biblically acceptable so long as it is done in moderation and there is no “buzz” or slight change in one’s mindset caused by alcohol or the BAC (blood alcohol content) is not “too high” (Eph 5:18; 1 Tim 5:23). However, the Christian high road is not to drink so as not to cause anyone (who may be susceptibleto alcoholism or drunkenness and just may happen to see or hear of the Christian drinking [We all are phenomenal at rationalizing to the wrong conclusion]) to stumble (Rom 14-15; 1 Cor 10:23-33). Now regarding legality and morality, for example, in some countries, prostitution is legal, but is it ethical? Is it moral? Is it Christian?
While not everyone has murder in their hearts as did Nazi Germany, but where does one draw the line? Did the previous line last year not produce enough results? Or is it just taking too long? Is there an easier way? Most researchers would agree that embryonic research offers a lot of good benefits? But was our previous research good enough? Or do we now have to expand to embryonic research because we are at a stand still? And even if that is the case, is it worth the cost?
Nazi Germany produced experiments that are unprecedented and unrepeatable. They performed freezing experiments, high altitude experiments, sea water experiments, sulfanilamide experiments, TB experiments, poison experiments, wound experiments, artificial insemination experiments, sterilization experiments, twin experiments, and Jewish skeleton experiments. However, most medical professionals have recognized that the Nazi scientific data was skewed, biased, and deceptive for obvious self-protection reasons. The Nazi medical doctors were to produce results or else, so those tempted to use their scientific data dismiss it on these grounds, above the moral grounds. So what if Nazi medical science was accurate? Would it be acceptable then?
Consider this hypothetical situation:
Suppose that a recipient and likely donor have been selected for a heart transplant operation. Usually, a donor is chosen among accident victims, close to death. Immediately after death, a donor’s heart must be quickly removed because his heart must still be alive or at least capable of living again to save the recipient’s life. Prior to death, a donor is in the halachic category of a terminally ill patient, and one must be very careful not to do anything that might hasten his death.
Given, then, that A is the donor, and that B is the worthy recipient, it would certainly be unethical to remove A’s heart while he is still alive (thereby killing him) with the intent to transplant it into B’s body. B’s blood is not redder than A’s, and both A and B deserve an equal chance to live. But what if a doctor disobeyed our warning, and removed A’s heart anyway? Can he transplant A’s murdered heart to save B’s life? B still needs a new heart or he will die. The moral problem is: what do we do with A’s murdered heart? Do we throw it away because it was immorally obtained? If so, must the needy recipient (B) suffer and die because of A’s unfortunate death? If so, is it ethical to have B’s death on our conscience? And what of the doctor? Suppose he transplanted A’s murdered heart into B. Would the doctor be considered A’s murderer or B’s hero? Could he be both? Would B’s renewed life suffer because of A’s death?
Does the Nazi data share that same definite guarantee for saving human lives as does an available organ to a needy recipient? If it does, then one could theoretically agree that it should most definitely be used. Perhaps justice would ultimately be served if we were to allow life to emerge from the Nazi murders. Although the data’s untested potential to save lives seems to be a bit more tenuous than that of the healthy heart, the potential to save a life might still be present. Therefore, the data should be used when lives are at stake.
This hypothetical provides us with the perfect scenario in which life can actually emerge from death, and good can emerge from evil. Medical statistics predict that a transplanted heart could increase the recipient’s chances of living by up to 80%. The potential to save the recipient’s life is almost guaranteed. The murdered heart (although tainted) must be transplanted to save the recipient’s life. Withholding the murdered heart from the worthy recipient would be tantamount to murder. Our underlying rationale in using the heart is to focus prospectively on the present medical crisis. The recipient desperately needs a transplanted heart, or else he dies. This murdered heart will save his life.
So there is no question as to whether good will come from the murdered heart. There is no question that evil can indeed be used for good, which is what a lot of transplantation medical services does.
So how does this apply to embryonic research? Well, it is ethically close to when SC was first deciding to have an educational program funded by a state lottery. Many Christians were against a lottery because of a few reasons including gambling and its ability to cause addiction and the potential results that gambling causes more poverty (make the poor poorer). However, if you ask those same Christians whether their sons or daughters are now accepting the state scholarship (given to anyone with a high school GPA of 3.0 or higher), most, if not all, would say that they accept the (“dirty?”) money. Should a Christian accept money accept from immoral reasons? Should a church accept dirty money (regardless of amount: $5 or $5 million) from a pimp, or gambling, or drugs? Likewise, many Christians will be faced one day with choosing to use the benefits of the scientific research obtained from embryonic research, which will be focusing its attention on AIDS, Cancer, and other deadly diseases. Should Christians choose a “natural” or “higher” road to treatment, not allowing or choosing any medical solution obtained from embryonic research? Or would we as Christians choose to accept these new medical procedures and solutions now that they are obtained regardless of how they were obtained? Maybe some of us will be more sly and choose the ignorant route, not wanting to know how this or that medical solution was discovered so as not to cause a moral dilemma within our souls. Simply, what should we as Christians do (or plan to do) with the medical results (and the solutions or treatments or even cures) that embryonic research may produce?
I don’t know the Christian solution or answer, but this is something that the American church needs to consider and think about proactively. What do you think?
