NTT Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion - Volume 63, Issue 2, 2009

Recent technological developments have resulted in breakthroughs for the enhancement of human form and functioning. Current bioethical debates grant insufficient attention to theological considerations. It is increasingly difficult to defend the position that theology has an integral role to play in ethical debates. This article reflects upon four specific ethical topics related to enhancement. I will present historical theological considerations on these topics and explore future avenues for a common dialogue in ethics and theology.

Developments in medical technology summon the image of a novel ‘bionic’ humanity of the cyborg. Is it possible to entirely reproduce human beings and retain their identity? This technological enhancement aims at improving the physical make-up of the human phenomenon as an individual. Mankind thus assumes control over their mental evolution, creating a techno-sapiens. This prompts the question whether religious faith, emotion, intention or responsibility are physiological reproducible. Experiments with a ‘God Machine’ seem to evoke religious impressions and to deny the individual meaning of God and the human mind. Hick’s dualism of mind and brain as dancing partners is unsuccessful by actually personalizing the brain. This article proposes to describe mental and brain functions as complementary instead of tracing their physiological origin. Then, religious faith is not reduced to fides quae, as merely physiological reproducible information, but remains an existential attitude to life, as fides qua, by itself within the context of a community of believers.

Revolutionary progress in the life sciences and in biotechnology presents us with completely new ethical questions concerning the acceptability of individual and generic eugenics, and of the production of ‘monsters’ of different kinds (including hybrids). Cultural developments related to what is called post or late modernity create a context in which biotechnology is freely used for the realization of all sorts of extravagant desires. Bioethics which is supposed to deal with new problems in this predicament has lost contact with concrete, lived morality and seems to have become the handmaiden of progress. It is argued here that a new kind of bioethics is required which is not divorced from ordinary, common sense morality and which is guided by fundamental philosophical reflections on morality and its place in culture.

These days people, both men and women, are growing older. Due to a wide variety of factors, such as medical cure, care and comfort life expectancy has risen. As a consequence, human beings are intent upon ameliorating the quality of their life. That is why they turn to the medical agencies. To the rising expectations physicians, nurses, etc. respond in two ways. On the one hand they develop therapeutic policies carefully and on the other they limit obstinate therapies, while promoting a smooth professional equilibrium, particularly in the field of intensive care. However, first of all they should deal with their patients as a goal and not as a means.

In biblical texts the imagery of birth is sometimes used to describe the process of creation. Equally, the language of creation is used to disclose birth and conception. In these processes human bodily experiences are regarded as essential. In addition to these biblical findings this article calls upon Hannah Arendt’s concept of natality to reflect on how to deal with genetics. The question is whether our creative strivings can reflect God’s will in creation as embodied relationships, and the concept of continual creation as well. The author asks what will change if bodily experiences are further separated from the notions of conception and birth.

Euthanasia can be viewed as a necessary response to extreme terminal suffering, but also as a brave expression of humans taking their destiny in their own hands. Reports sent to euthanasia review committees often motivate a patient’s choice for euthanasia in terms of an autonomous choice. On the basis of an analysis of 1,000 euthanasia cases from the review procedure in the years 2005-2008, it is argued that euthanasia in the Netherlands is predominantly an emergency reaction rather than an expression of autonomy. From a closer look at the data we learn that the autonomy card is only played in the context of extreme suffering without any prospect of improvement.

After some introductory remarks and after some comments on the contributions in this thematic issue, I am playing with the word ‘relativity’, in order to show that human enhancement is only relatively new, that some claims in this area (for instance those of the so-called Transhumanists) should be put into perspective, that human enhancement should be seen in relation to (the far-reaching impact on) society, in relation to global problems such as climate change, food and water, and in relation to religious belief(s), since technology is the incarnation of our hopes, desires and ideals. From a Christian point of view, it would be interesting to relate human enhancement to concepts like resurrection of the body, kenosis, theiosis, sin and imago Dei.