Guest Commentary By Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
Most issues in medical ethics require a sound understanding of “human personhood.” While the issue of personhood itself is a philosophical question and cannot be determined empirically, it is possible to determine with empirical and scientific accuracy when the material aspect of a human being begins to exist.
Scientifically, for over 100 years, it has been documented empirically that, in human sexual reproduction, the material aspect of a human being begins to exist when the sperm makes first contact with the oocyte at the beginning of the process of fertilization. In human asexual reproduction, a human being begins to exist when the DNA in a cell and its other cell constituents are “appropriately reorganized,” i.e., are “reorganized” within the cell in such a way that the cell becomes a new human organism—a new human being.
Philosophically, a human person is defined properly as a human being who possesses a rational soul, and that rational soul must always include all three powers of the soul simultaneously—i.e., the sensitive, vegetative and rational powers of the soul cannot be separated. No power of the soul can exist alone, and no whole soul can exist alone without the human body. There is no “soul/soul” split and no “soul/body” split. Therefore, there is no delay between when a human being and when a human person begin to exist. The human being and the human person refer to the same being and must always exist simultaneously.
Since we can know empirically when the material aspect of a human being begins to exist, we can therefore reason back to when that human person begins to exist. Thus, the human person must begin to exist immediately when the human being begins to exist.
When discussing medical ethics questions that involve when a human being begins to exist, it is crucial that the starting point of our inquiry is empirically based, i.e., based on the accurate scientific facts of human embryology. The need for scientific accuracy becomes particularly clear when addressing the legal protection of the right to life of all human beings. However, there are some—including some Catholics—who do not understand the need for accurate language.
And yet Catholics should understand this need more than anyone else, for the following reason: To make a scientific error at the beginning, in determining when a human being begins to exist, will automatically cause an error in determining philosophically when a human person begins to exist—which, in turn, will destroy our understanding of the foundation of the natural law and the moral law. And that will ultimately bring to an end the moral authority of the Catholic Church and her teachings on the value and dignity of the human person.
Don’t believe it? Consider this:
1. If the scientific definition of a “human being” and when he/she begins to exist is scientifically false, then the philosophical definition of a “human person” and when he/she begins to exist is automatically false and therefore invalid. This is especially a problem when false scientific “facts” are used as false empirical starting points for the purpose of falsely claiming that there is a delay or “split” between the human being and the human person.
Erroneous definitions of a human person can be (and already have been) applied to virtually every bioethical question. Instead of understanding that there is only one human soul that possesses three different powers—the vegetative, sensitive and rational powers—many bioethicists claim that there are three human souls—the vegetative, sensitive and rational souls— and that they are added to the human body one at a time. That is, they claim that first the human body possesses the vegetative soul, then later the sensitive soul is added, and even later the rational soul is added. It is the rational soul, they claim, that confers personhood on that human being.
So, in the view of these bioethicists, before the rational soul is present, certain actions are ethically justified because there is no person there—e.g., abortion, the use of abortifacients, infanticide, destructive human embryo and fetal research, human cloning, human genetic engineering, etc.
They also apply those erroneous bioethical concepts of the soul to the end of life. Thus, they claim, first the rational soul leaves the body (and thus personhood is lost), then the sensitive soul leaves the body, and finally there is nothing left there but a human vegetative soul—the very basis of their claim that there is a “vegetative state.” This erroneous belief allows them to justify withholding/ withdrawing food, hydration and oxygen; withholding /withdrawing medical care and other forms of euthanasia; physician-assisted suicide; erroneous definitions of death; illicit organ transplantation, etc.
2. If the philosophical definition of a human person and when he/she begins to exist is automatically false and therefore invalid, then the definition of “human nature” is also automatically false and therefore invalid. This will necessarily have a deleterious effect not just on medical ethics, but also on related fields such as philosophy, theology, law, social theory, etc., since human nature is synonymous with human personhood.
3. If the definition of human nature is automatically false and therefore invalid, then the definition of the “natural law” is automatically false and therefore invalid.
The natural law is a philosophical concept derived through the use of reason alone. It is based on an empirically derived concept of human nature—i.e., what we observe is common among all human persons as human persons. All human persons possess the same kind of human nature. Among the many things common to their human natures is when and how they begin to exist.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (section 1954), “The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin … [T]his command of human reason … [is] the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.”
Section 1956 explains that the natural law “expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties.”
4. If the definition of the natural law is automatically false and therefore invalid, then the definition of “moral law” in Catholic theology is also automatically false and therefore invalid. The moral law is grounded in the natural law, but perfected through divine revelation and the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority).
The Catechism (section 1950) tells us, “The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom…. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God.”
The Catechism (section 1959) also explains the moral law’s relationship to the natural law: “The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community.”
5. If the definition of the moral law is automatically false and therefore invalid, then the Catholic Church’s teachings based on the moral law are automatically false and therefore invalid.
Among the Church’s moral teachings is its prohibition of all forms of murder, at all stages of life: “From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life” (CCC, section 2270, emphasis added).
6. If the Church’s moral teachings are automatically false and therefore invalid, then the Church’s moral authority is automatically false and therefore invalid.
“To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles … and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls” (CCC, section 2032).
The Catholic Church has always done more to protect human beings from harm than any other institution. But such protection gets in the way of evil agendas. Thus, how to overcome the positive and life-affirming influence of the most powerful institution in the world? Destroy it, one level at a time.
Do you now see how all the levels fall, one after the other—like dominoes—when you start with a false definition of a human being and when he/she begins to exist?
For a more detailed explanation of the numerous and far-reaching ramifications of scientifically inaccurate definitions and language, visit www.lifeissues.net to see Dr. Irving’s comments on “Pennsylvania Researchers Turn Stem Cells to Egg Cells” by Nicholas Wade, published in the May 2, 2003 New York Times(http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_02comment001.html).
Dr. Irving is a professor of the history of philosophy and medical ethics and former career-appointed bench research biochemist/biologist for the National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute. She earned an M.A. and Ph.D. in philosophy from Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.
Copies of this commentary are available in brochure form by calling our resources department at 1-866-538-5483.