To the
members of the World Medical Association
THE DANGERS OF GENETIC MANIPULATION
On Saturday, 29
October, the Holy Father received in audience members of the World Medical
Association. The following is the text
of the Holy Father's speech on that occasion.
Ladies,
Gentlemen,
1.
At the conclusion of the thirty-fifth General Assembly of the World Medical
Association at
With
you then I express best wishes that the medical science and the art of healing
may continue to progress. Already the
battle against acquired illnesses, intense or chronic, has become very
effective. That organized against
hereditary diseases is likewise being challenged to further advances. How could we not hope that you find in
contemporary society - which invests so much in the comfort of health -
sufficient concern and support to bring the required care to the illnesses of
today and tomorrow?
The physician and the
rights of manipulation
2. The theme of your meeting in
The
rights to which one refers are not in the first place those which are
recognized by the changing legislations of civil society, but they are rooted
in fundamental principles, in the moral
law which is based on being itself and which is immutable. The domain of deontology may appear,
especially today, as the most vulnerable in the field of medicine: but it is
essential, and medical morality should always be considered by practitioners as
the norm of their professional practice that deserves most attention and above
all the greatest efforts for its defence.
Basic conception of
medicine itself
3.
It is evident that the extraordinary and rapid advance of medical science
entails frequent re-thinking of its deontology.
You are necessarily confronted with new questions that are stimulating
but very delicate. With this the Church
is in full sympathy, and she willingly supports your reflection, in respect for
your responsibilities.
But
the search for a satisfactory position on the ethical level depends
fundamentally on one's basic conception of medicine itself. What must be established definitively is
whether medicine is indeed at the service of the human person, of his dignity,
of what he has, of the unique and of the transcendent, or whether medicine is
considered first of all as the agent of the community, at the service of the
interests of those in good health, to whom the care of the sick would be
subordinated. Now medical morality has
always defined itself, since the days of Hippocrates, as respect and protection
of the human person. What is involved
here is much more than the preservation of a traditional deontology; it is
respect for a concept of medicine which is valid for men of all times, which
safeguards the man of tomorrow, thanks to the value it attaches to the human
person who is a subject of rights and of duties, and never an object to be used
for other ends, not even some self-styled social good.
Duty to respect and
defend human life
4.
You will allow me to take up a few points that in my view are important. The convictions to which I witness before you
are those of the Catholic Church of which I have been appointed universal
Shepherd. For us, man is a being created
in the image of God, redeemed by Christ and called to an immortal destiny. These convictions then ring true, I hope, in
the case of the believers who accept the Bible as the Word of God. But, since, they lead us to the greatest
respect for the human being, I am sure that they reach all men of good will who
reflect on the condition of man and who are eager at any price to save him from
whatever threatens his life, his dignity and his liberty.
First of all the respect for
life. There is no one,
believer or unbeliever, who can refuse to respect human life, to make it his
duty to defend it, to save it, most especially when as yet it has no voice to
proclaim its rights. May all doctors be
faithful to the saying of Hippocrates which they swear to uphold when they
receive their doctorate. In the same vein, the General Assembly of the
World Medical Association had adopted in 1948 at Geneva a form of the saying
which spelled out its content as follows:
“I shall maintain absolute respect for human life from the time of its
conception, even under threat, I shall never allow my medical knowledge to be
used against the law of humanity”. I
hope that this solemn commitment will continue at any rate to be the line of
conduct of doctors. What is at stake is
the trust they deserve. What is at stake
is their own conscience, whatever be the concessions
that the civil law allows one to make in the case, for example, of abortion or
euthanasia. What is expected of you is
that you oppose the ailment;
whatever is contrary to life, but without sacrificing life itself
which is the greatest good and over which we have not dominion. God alone is the master of human life and of
its integrity.
The profound unity of
the human being
5. A
second point that I would stress with you is the unity of the human being.
It is important that we do not isolate the technical problem posed by
the treatment of a specific illness from the attention paid to the person of
the patient in all his aspects. It is
well to recall this when medical science tends towards specialization in each
discipline. The doctor of yesterday was
above all a general practitioner. His
attention embraced first of all the totality of bodily organs and
functions. Then too, on another plane,
it was more easy for him to be acquainted with the
patient's family, his milieu, his whole medical history. Evolution is inevitable; it depends on the specialization of
studies, and on the complication of life in society. At least you should unceasingly make the
effort to keep in mind the profound unity of the human being, in the evident
interaction of all his bodily functions, but also in the unity of his bodily,
effective, intellectual and spiritual dimensions. Last year, on 30 October, I urged the
Catholic physicians who were meeting in
This
perspective of the whole in which it is important always to situate the
particular medical problem may also be understood, not only of each individual
but, in an analogical sense, of society where complementarity
allows us to find a certain solution to problems that cannot be solved on the
individual plane. Suffice it to recall
the handicap of definitive physical sterility which some families manage to
compensate for by adoption or by their devotedness to the children of others.
A serious question for
human conscience
6.
The third point was suggested to me by a very important theme taken up during
the course of your General Assembly at
A
strictly therapeutic intervention whose explicit objective is the healing of
various maladies such as those stemming from deficiencies of chromosomes will,
in principle, be considered desirable, provided it is directed to the true
promotion of the personal wellbeing of man and does not infringe on his
integrity or worsen his conditions of life.
Such an intervention indeed would fall within the logic of the Christian
moral tradition, as I said when speaking to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
on
But
here the question returns. Indeed it is
of great interest to know if an intervention on genetic inheritance that goes
beyond the limits of the therapeutic in the strict sense should be regarded
likewise as morally acceptable. For this
to be verified, several conditions must be respected
and certain premises accepted. Allow me
to recall some of these.
Safeguarding man's
identity
The
biological nature of each person is untouchable in the sense that it is
constitutive of the personal identity of the individual throughout the whole
course of his history. Each human
person, in his absolutely unique singularity, is constituted not only by his
spirit, but by his body as well. Thus,
in the body and through the body, one touches the person himself in his
concrete reality. To respect the dignity
of man consequently amounts to safeguarding this identity of the man “corpore et anima unus”, as
Vatican Council II says (const. Gaudium et Spes n. 14, par 1). It is on the basis of this anthropological
vision that one should find the fundamental criteria for decision-making in the
case of not strictly therapeutic interventions, for example those aimed at the
amelioration of the human biological condition.
In
particular, this kind of intervention must not infringe on the origin of human
life, that is, procreation linked to the union, not only biological but also
spiritual, of the parents, united by the bond of marriage. It must consequently respect the fundamental
dignity of men and the common biological nature which is at the base of
liberty, avoiding manipulations that tend to modify genetic inheritance and to
create groups of different men at the risk of causing new cases of
marginalization in society.
Life the supreme good
Moreover, the fundamental attitudes that
inspire the interventions of which we are speaking should not flow from a
racist and materialist mentality aimed at a human well-being that is in reality
reductionist.
The dignity of man transcends his biological condition.
Genetic manipulation becomes arbitrary and unjust when it reduces life
to an object, when it forgets that it is dealing with a human subject, capable
of intelligence and freedom, worthy of respect whatever may be their
limitations; or
when it treats this person in terms of criteria not founded on the integral
reality of the human person, at the risk of infringing upon his dignity. In this case, it exposes the individual to
the caprice of others, thus depriving him of his autonomy.
Scientific and technical progress, whatever it be,
must then maintain the greatest respect for the moral values that constitute a
safeguard for the dignity of the human person.
And because, in the order of medical values, life is the supreme and the
most radical good of man, there must be a fundamental principle: first oppose everything harmful, then seek
out and pursue the good.
Adhering to God's
design
To tell the truth, the expression “genetic
manipulation” remains ambiguous and should constitute an object of true moral
discernment, for it covers on the one hand adventure - some endeavours aimed at
promoting I know not what kind of superman and, on the other hand, desirable
and salutary interventions aimed at the correction of anomalies such as certain
hereditary illnesses, not to mention the beneficent applications in the domains
of animal and vegetable biology that favour food production. For these last cases some are beginning to speak
of “genetic surgery”, so as to show more clearly that medicine intervenes not
in order to modify nature but to favour its development in its own life, that
of the creation, that intended by God. While working in this obviously delicate
domain, the researcher adheres to the design of God. God willed that man be the king of the
creation. To you surgeons, specialists
in laboratory work and general practitioners, to you belongs the task of
cooperating with all the forces of your intelligence in the work of creation
begun on the first day of the world. One
cannot but render homage to the immense progress achieved in this sense by the
medicine of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. But, as you are aware, it is more than ever
necessary to overcome the separation between science and morality, to
rediscover their profound unity. It is
man whom you are dealing with, man whose dignity precisely it is the province
of morality to safeguard.
Thanking you for your visit and for your trust, and aware of the grave responsibilities that weigh upon you, I express my best wishes for your activity and your witness within the World Medical Association and among all your medical confreres, and I invoke the blessings of God, the Author of life, upon each one of you, upon your labour, upon your families and friends.