WASHINGTON, D.C., NOV. 16, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: My friend has a 21-year-old daughter who suffers from a developmental disorder that makes her behave significantly younger than she is. I too have a daughter with a similar disorder (she's 12). Because some people prey on girls who do not understand what is going on or do not have the reasoning skills to stop a situation, my friend put her daughter on "birth control" to protect her. She has, of course, talked to her daughter about what is appropriate touching and what is inappropriate. But she still fears for her daughter's safety. I know from my experience that my daughter often does inappropriate things unknowingly. I understand this mother's worry, but I wonder if there are any moral concerns with doing this? -- D.U., Wichita, Kansas.

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 27, 2011 (Zenit.org (http://www.zenit.org /)).- Here
is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the
fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation
(http://www.culture-of-life.org /).

Q: Prior to "Humanae Vitae," was the idea of "proportional morality" ever
discussed (e.g., in the work of the papal birth control commission)? By
proportional morality, I mean the ranking of moral issues such that one
issue trumps another. For example, if overpopulation threatens to destroy
everything, wouldn't this trump the prohibition against birth control and
abortion? -- Rob. Sedona, Arizona.

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

Intention Must Be to Serve the Needs of Others

WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 13, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- A reader from Ontario, Canada, has written to say: "I have allowed my body at death to be given to science. Is this permissible?"

The short answer is "Yes," if specific conditions are met. To show why, I will review briefly Church teaching on organ donation and comment on this teaching to show its relevance to donating one’s body to science. Next, legitimate reasons for donating one’s body to science will be given.

It will then be helpful to summarize canons of the Code of Canon Law that must be taken into account and comment on these canons. It will also be important to consider the policies of a person’s diocese of residence that are to be observed. I will then provide a concluding summary.

WASHINGTON, D.C., NOV. 3, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: Is a "do-not-resuscitate" order ever ethical? Shouldn't a patient in an emergency situation always be resuscitated, so that the family can evaluate with some time and care what are the limits of ordinary and extraordinary care (and is that distinction used anymore)? -- K.T., Kansas City, USA.

William E. May offers the following response:

WASHINGTON, D.C., OCT. 8, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Dr. Robert Edwards, IVF pioneer and recipient of the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, first fertilized a human egg in vitro (literally "in glass") in 1969. The embryo died after the first cell division. He surmised that successful in vitro embryonic development required the harvesting of mature eggs.

WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPT. 22, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: Could you tell us the state of Church teachings on homologous intrauterine insemination between spouses, using a seminal reservoir to obtain the semen? -- J.A.A. of Santiago de Chile

William E. May offers the following response:

I presume that by "homologous intrauterine insemination," J.A.A. is referring to the procedure known as GIFT, an acronym that stands for "gamete intrafallopian tube transfer."

What is GIFT?

When I speak publically on bioethical issues, the topic I most frequently address is the problem of the terrible exploitation of human embryos.

Meilaender takes these topics up in chapters 4 and 5, of his Bioethics: A Primer for Christians. I will devote more space to the first issue.

CHAPTER 4, GENETIC ADVANCE (pp. 38-47)
Summary and Comment
Meilaender’s principal concern in this chapter centers on a new kind of medical therapy aimed at curing persons suffering from or genetically disposed to different genetically caused diseases such as Down Syndrome, sickle-cell anemia, diabetes, and many, many others. After describing how some of these diseases are caused genetically, Meilaender then examines the basic forms of genetic therapy: germ cell therapy and somatic cell therapy. Modifications of germ cells (i.e., the cells proper to males and females, sperm and ova respectively, that when united become a newly conceived human person) are passed on to future generations whereas modifications of somatic cells (=equals the cells found in different parts of an individual’s body, e.g., in one’s brain, pancreas, liver, colon, etc.) are not and affect only the individual whose somatic cells are modified (39-41). Meilaender repudiates germ cell therapy, judging its supposed great benefit—the overcoming of disease not just in one person but in future generations--to be its “greatest danger…[which] C. S. Lewis memorably characterized as the ‘abolition of man.’” By this Meilaender and Lewis mean that the risks of such therapy and the harmful effects it might have on our children and grandchildren are not known to man but only to God—and we are not God and ought not “play” God. On the other hand, the moral questions raised by somatic cell therapy do not call for “the no that should be spoken to germ cell modification but for caution and a willingness to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable aims of therapy” (42-43).

In this Part I summarize Chapters 5 though 8 and offer reflections and comments on this very important book.