Ed's Reply

Ed's Reply

Brother,

Perhaps, your questions come from a somewhat late entry into my experiences as a medical ethicist.

#1. To my immediate knowledge, I have never avoided joining forces with Christian medical ethicists.

a. Ben Mitchell invited me to a Southern Baptist colloquium onmedical ethics which was eventually published in book form. An interesting side note to this conference is that I had a brief encounter with Francis Collins the head of the Human Genome project. I tried to challenge him on the fact that genes are only copied, something else determines what is copied and when. That is, genes are not the only cellular components that determine the function of a cell. He looked at me as though I were a lunatic. Now, they are finding that simple substitution of genes is not a straightforward matter!

b. I became the writer of both the Medical and Psychological parts of the Coalition on Revival worldview statements. I separated myself from them when they allowed alternative medicine advocates to say anything without rebuttal.

c. Kilner invited me to their 1st or 2nd (I am not sure which) conference on ethics and stuck me in an obscure place with a fringe topic. I was never invited to anything else.

d. I participated in a very diverse (i.e., Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Greek Orthodox, etc.) group put together by Harold O. J. Brown, about ten years ago.

e. I claim to be the primary motivating force for the re-written abortion statement of CMDS and many of their "ethical" positions. I was appointed to their Ethics Commission (I had not published then, so they didn't know me very well), and agitated at their highest level for a re-write of their first abortion statement. Their governing body (Trustees?) overruled the Ethics Commission and presented a new statement to the House of Delegates. Also, I claim to be the first member of the Ethics Commission to be actively removed according to its 6-year limit. Others had been on it well past the 6-year limit.

He who has the gold makes the rules (a colloquial "Golden Rule"). Generally, I don't think that Hilton, myself, and our few cohorts ever had enough clout on the evangelical landscape to garner much attention or invitation. From our perspective with limited resources, we chose to promote those closest to our viewpoints. Many others had the major publishers and public forums.

#2. No, separation is not necessary, but being able to speak is. The paragraph above mostly explains this position. Had not Hilton and I ventured into publishing, and at one time, periodic conferences, we would have been virtually unseen in the evangelical world.

Why have I "often criticized" and "rarely complimented" other Christian ethicists? I found that much more than a brief compliment was taken as an endorsement and the criticism was not heard! Also, there was far more to criticize than agree with.

E.g., whenever I got a new book on medical ethics, my first effort was to read everything concerning their author(s) position on abortion, the simplest of ethical issues. Rarely, and I consciously, carefully use "rarely," did I find a clear and profound pro-life position! Now Brother, if evangelicals cannot get that one issue right, what hope is there for light on other subjects!

#3. The Medical Sentinel and AAPS is a delaying tactic. I lend my support to an organization that understands much of the economic issues of medicine (one facet of medical ethics). They are a retarding, mildly effective change agent in the medical world. I also see them as an opportunity for evangelism, both in the traditional sense of conversion and non-traditional sense of a Biblical medical ethic.

It is run by Christians at their core who understand better than CMDS what the issues are.

#4. There can be only two methods with unbelievers. One is evangelism, and the second is philosophical debate. In our postmodern world, ignorant populace and leaders (we really don't have "education" in this country), the latter is difficult.

One example is common reference by medical ethicists to the Hippocratic Oath. I like to point out that since they support abortion and euthanasia, they are inconsistent, picking and choosing their own version.

You mentioned the "largely complimentary review" of Camerons' book "The New Medicine." Allowing that review to be published in JBEM was a major concession on my part. With your philosophical perspicuity, I don't think that you will find much there, either. You are correct that we must compromise somewhere. God help us with such wisdom. We cannot become monastic monks, and neither have we time or opportunity to present a comprehensive position. However, I mentioned one example above: abortion. Can we compromise on that? If we can, then nothing else really matters (in my not-so-humble opinion).

Frankly, I am a little surprised at your challenge. Not that I mind it. If one cannot defend his actions, then they have either never been properly examined or need to be. However, your questions are more superficial that your usual broad and deep perspective. I mildly suspect something else going on in your mind that caused this challenge. I may be, and am likely wrong, but your questions are a little differently formulated than the Brother that I have read in the past.

As always, I am praying that you will be a Daniel in the modern Babylon of medicine. You should not see that mantle as a burden, but one to pursue by hard study and logical thinking. Then, God may or may not provide the opportunities. His yoke is easy and his burden light... we add any weight that we feel.

If I have omitted any questions, or you want further clarification, on the above, I am quite willing to provide them for my Daniel. I don't claim infallibility, but most answers are quite well thought through from a philosophical and Biblical point of view. But, and I have (occasionally) been challenged and changed by another. We all have blind spots, and I have wondered where mine are.

Godspeed, my dear man.

P.S. I would like to post your email and my response to our website. I have not posted recent material, and this interchange shows some facets of our thinking. If you had rather not post this, then I understand.