Our recent book discussions with TEDS students, TEDS faculty, and CBHD members on Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World provided great opportunities for in-depth conversation about human nature and dignity. Technological advancement and control over environment do not guarantee the preservation of our dignity and worth as human beings. Human dignity being core to the issues we explore in Christian bioethics, it is also foundational to the articles in this issue of Dignitas. Collected here are three essays presenting profound insights from biblical and theological perspectives on three topics: the biblical doctrine of love in bioethics, the problem of prolonged solitary confinement, and the gift of life through human organ donation. Also included in this issue is a review from Anna Vollema of Michael Sarnoski’s movie A Quiet Place: Day One (2024).
In the first article, Robert Drew addresses the theological doctrine of love in relation to the bioethical concerns for caring for others who face disability and death. In his view, bioethics is deeply connected to love and its practice. Furthermore, love, the most important force in modern society, has a wide-ranging impact on human decision-making processes and sociocultural values and goals. With this emphasis on the influence of love, the author points out the problems that arise in defining love in modern society. He argues that today’s definitions of love are too diverse, which causes serious harm and confusion in the way we approach bioethical issues. In relation to the biblical doctrine of love, D. A. Carson also mentions how this doctrine manifests itself in modern society; he believes that we live in a culture where many truths about God are not widely believed, and, as a result of that, the love of God in our culture has been redefined by eliminating anything that the culture finds uncomfortable.[1] Drew believes that leaving love to be defined by each individual can be a serious harm to themselves and humanity. He argues that a proper view of the doctrine of love requires that we approach others with love based on the virtue of mercy, not from a relativistic standpoint.
Drew seeks to provide answers to these concerns and suggests ways in which the doctrine of love might be applied in a bioethical context. His article begins with an overview of the history of bioethics in terms of definition and methodology. The author makes clear the difference between morality and ethics. In short, morality refers to moral knowledge about the content of right or wrong. Ethics refers to moral reasoning, the process of judging right and wrong. In terms of bioethics, Drew points out that it aims to discern how best to maximize the benefits of biological advances in ways that respect humanity and honor human dignity. He further cautions against a relativistic approach to love for others, emphasizing the virtue of benevolence, which is an attitude of intention or action to do good for others. The article then shifts its focus to the doctrine of God. Drew delves deeper into the topic of love through the teaching of the Bible and theological themes on love, drawing on the concept of love in the Old and New Testaments. In conclusion, he offers meaningful suggestions for the application of the doctrine of love to bioethical issues from a practical perspective. Drew does a great job of laying out how the doctrine of love is received into a bioethical discussion on theological grounds.
In the next article, John Han addresses problems that may arise from long-term solitary confinement in prisons. Solitary confinement means the involuntary isolation of a prisoner in a closed cell located in a remote unit for nearly 24 hours a day. This confinement substantially limits the prisoner’s access to meaningful social interaction and positive environmental stimulation. Those who support solitary confinement emphasize the need for solitary confinement as a disciplinary punishment for prisoners. Disciplinary action may be necessary for some inmates to prevent harm from occurring and to protect vulnerable victims. Correctional officers use it to maintain order within the institution and to reduce harm by separating certain individuals from the general prison population for safety reasons, either for the safety of the individual or for the safety of vulnerable inmates. Despite the necessary aspects, it is reported that in some serious cases, the quarantine period can extend from days to years or even decades. Further, in response to the abuse of confinement, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHD) issued a statement that opposes prolonged solitary confinement (more than 15 consecutive days).
Therefore, the abuse of long-term (years or more) solitary confinement is an important issue that needs to be addressed. This article by John Han, the runner-up of CBHD’s 2024 Student Paper Competition, raises concerns about prolonged solitary confinement as a punishment that can threaten human dignity. The author approaches this issue from a philosophical and ontological perspective regarding the negative impact of isolation on humans. His main argument is that prolonged solitary confinement brings about not only perceptual or cognitive detachment from reality but also an ontological detachment. Based on the phenomenological work of Martin Heidegger and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Han diagnoses that solitary confinement deprives prisoners of everyday activities and communities that constitute the meaning of human existence. In his view, it deprives individuals from the meaningful social contacts necessary for world-making, and as a result may damage their fundamental relationality. The author then extends his argument to implications for Christianity. He draws our attention to the fact that the church, as a body of believers, is called to share sufferings and show hospitality with its fellow believers and the world. In Hans view, Christian love for the world includes acknowledging the humanity of others through the practices of kindness and service. The essay concludes that solitary confinement can have existentially dehumanizing effects.
The third article, by Gregory Rutecki, addresses the issue of organ donation in relation to human dignity. In his essay, “The Gift of Life: Preserving the Dignity of Organ Transplantation,” Rutecki presents an overview of the current state of organ donation and transplantation, taking into account limited donor pools, facilitation policies, and reliance on religion-based altruism. Although advances in medical technology have made organ transplants possible, that does not mean that organ transplants are available to everyone right now. Despite the continued increase in the number of organ transplants, the number of individuals waiting for organ transplants exceeds the number of donations.
Rutecki focuses on the issues arising from living donor transplants. He argues that there is a need to reframe and revisit the ongoing ethical debate regarding solutions to limited donor pools. He provides an explanation about some measures implemented to encourage donations to help bridge the imbalance between need and provision. One measure that has been suggested is the provision of financial benefits to donors at the government level. The author expresses concern about the negative side effects of such financial compensation, as it could lead to commercialization of human organs. In addition, some vulnerable populations may be overexposed to such risks.
On the donor side, Rutecki warns against overly optimistic views on organ transplantation, which could lead to health problems for donors. The author also raises an important issue of altruism based on religion. In his view, such altruism should be praised as a practice of altruistic love toward others, but he believes that careful attention should be paid to donations that may be influenced by pressure in religious community. The author still holds out hope for a Christian altruism that recognizes human dignity and cares for others. Taken together, Rutecki concludes that while altruistic organ donation should be respected and appreciated, there needs to be more discussion about how to protect recipients and donors and ensure human dignity throughout the organ transplant process.
As always, this issue also includes an account of worldwide health issues via the Global Health Timeline, a variety of media resources in the Bioengagement section, and news concerning CBHD in the Updates & Activities section. We are also posting meaningful conversations about current bioethical issues through the Bioethics Podcast and our Intersections forum. Finally, we always welcome article submissions for our upcoming Dignitas issues.
[1] D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Crossway Books, 2000), 11.
Hyangjin (Joy) Park, Anna Vollema, and Matthew Eppinette, "Editorial (Fall/Winter 2024)," Dignitas 31, no. 3-4 (2024): 1–2, www.cbhd.org/dignitas-articles/editorial-fall-winter-2024.