Bioethics in Faith and Practice, Volume 1, Number 1

Bioethics in Faith and Practice ⦁ 2015 ⦁ Volume 1 ⦁ Number 1 1 From the Senior Editor Welcome to Bioethics in Faith and Practice Dennis M. Sullivan, M.D., M.A. (Ethics) Cedarville University Welcome to Bioethics in Faith and Practice ! Whether you are a healthcare professional, an academic, a member of the clergy, a student, or simply someone interested in these topics, we are glad you are here. This new enterprise is meant to bridge the gap between theory and practice, where moral philosophy and Christian faith are brought to bear on the everyday practice of medicine. It is important to understand why this new journal exists. The ethical dimension in medicine has changed dramatically in the years since World War II, and especially in the past thirty years. The centuries-old Hippocratic tradition was characterized by clinical skill and beneficence, within the moral framework of the doctor-patient covenant. This idea, though it began in Greek pagan thought, was easily adopted into the Christian ideal, such that Hippocratic principles became normative for medicine, and compatible with compassionate Christianity. Indeed, it is proverbial to say that a physician should not perform actions that would “violate his or her Hippocratic Oath,” whether or not the doctor in question has actually taken such an Oath. Hippocratic ideals have been so influential that Justice Blackmun, in writing the majority opinion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision, felt compelled to argue against their moral weight. This was in spite of the fact that none of the discussants in the case presented evidence related to the Oath or to Hippocrates. Justice Blackmun dismissed the Oath as “a Pythagorean manifesto and not the expression of an absolute standard of medical conduct.” 1 In so doing, he clearly felt he had to 1) comment on the Oath’s strong pro-life injunctions, and 2) marginalize the moral weight of the Oath, erroneously consigning it to a minority view. The high court’s decision is emblematic of a more widespread trend in society as a whole, and this thinking has crept into health care. Nigel Cameron has pointed out that the traditional Hippocratic goal of medicine as healing has been replaced by a more autonomy-driven ideal: relief of suffering . If the latter is accepted as absolute, then traditional commitments to beneficence and to the sanctity of life are no longer simply a given. 2 Some have referred to these ethical changes as an “Enlightenment project” within medicine. Theological and religious perspectives have been completely marginalized, to be replaced by a thoroughly secular approach . 3 From a variety of ethical theories are derived the four classical principles of medical ethics: Bioethics in Faith and Practice vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-3. ISSN 2374-1597 © 2015, Dennis Sullivan, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ )