Just recently a new “bionic man” was revealed in the media. This amazing robotic device performs many functions that were previously impossible by any mechanical or biomechanical device. It features enhancements that may someday be used in and on human beings to make our lives better or to repair damaged parts. Really, however, we have seen “bionic” humans for years.
Pacemakers, automatic insulin pumps and other devices used to treat conditions or injuries have been in use for some times. The future holds promise for many other devices and drugs that promise to make us smarter, faster, stronger, and functional. We have drugs today that promise to slow the progress of dementia, whether we are talking about Alzheimer’s disease or one of the associated disorders.
At what point do we question the enhancements? And, where do we draw the line at employing devices on top of devices until we wonder if the patient is still human? Should society employ limits to the extent of enhancements? Can religious people influence that discussion?
The first understanding that faith may bring to the ethical discussion is what it means to be human. We are wonderfully made, according to one old hymn. Thomas Aquinas tell us that we are made in the image of G_d. Since we cannot se G_d and we cannot and should not try to draw a picture, that mans there is a wide latitude in defining what being in the image of the Transcendent means. The Creator celebrate the creativity of the created. To me that means that to be human is to celebrate each other’s creative urge as well as performance. To be human is also to be empathic. Neither of these attributes comes with a physical description.
To be human is to be animated by the divine spark that for religious people always seeks the Creator. Our “souls” seek their source. Can enhancements change that? The answer is, not yet. The religious person’s responsibility is to work to see that the destruction of the soul’s seeking is avoided no matter what enhancements promise.
You may think I am ducking the question. I am not. The answer is simply not final. We will develop the manner in which we define humanity over time as challenges grow. We will also have to avoid a knee-jerk response when what can be defined as human does not “look” human. Our minds will grow to a new understanding as required. And, isn’t that the mark of humanity?
What do you think?
chaplaintomdoc 