Christian Bioethics: A Guide for Pastors, Health Care Professionals, and Families

by C. Ben Mitchell, D. Joy Riley

Living in an era of highly technical medicine is comforting and sometimes confusing. How should Christians make life and death decisions? How do we move from an ancient text like the Bible to twenty-first-century questions about organ transplantation, stem-cell research, and human cloning?  What kind of care do we owe one another at the end of life?  Is euthanasia a Christian option?
 
Using a dialogue format, an ethicist and physician talk about how to think about thorny ethical issues. Combining their backgrounds in medicine and theology, they deal with real-life moral questions in an accessible way. C. Ben Mitchell and D. Joy Riley let readers eavesdrop on their conversation about the training of doctors, the interpretation of the Bible, and controversial issues like abortion, assisted-suicide, genetic engineering, and in vitro fertilization.
 
The book examines these topics under three general the taking of life, the making of life, and the faking of life. Christian Bioethics is a guidebook for pastors, health care professionals and families―anyone facing difficult decisions about health care.

Genres: Science, Health

224 pages, Paperback

First published September 15, 2013

About the author

C. Ben Mitchell is associate professor of bioethics and contemporary culture at Trinity International University, Deerfield, Illinois.

Reviews

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a wonderful book on bioethics from a Christian perspective. I have felt for years that there is a need for more works on Christian bioethics and no doubt this book makes a contribution. The book exceeded my expectation. I appreciated the fact that both authors’ background helped in making a contribution to the book: C. Ben Mitchell has a PhD in medical ethics in addition to his pastoral background while D. Joy Riley is a physician with a masters in bioethics. Both Mitchell and Riley serve in hospital ethics committee and have written previous on bioethical issues.
The book is divided into four parts. The first part is an introduction with chapter one on doctors and medicine and chapter two on how to apply the Bible for the Twenty First century. The “meat” of the book is in part two through four which adopts the bioethics rubric by theologian Nigel Cameron of “taking life, making life and remaking/faking life.” Under “Taking Life” there is a chapter each on abortion and human dignity in death. Under “Making Life” the authors discusses the topic of assisted reproductive technology, organ donations, transplantation, cloning and human-animal hybrids. Part four consist of one chapter on the topic of aging and life extension technologies with a significant discussion on Transhumanist movement. General readers will learn a lot from these chapters concerning these controversial issues.
I also appreciated the format of the book. Each chapter opens up with a case study followed by some discussion questions based upon the case study. The heart of each chapter is a dialogue discussion between the two authors. At first I wasn’t sure whether it would work having the book set up as an “interview” but I was pleasantly surprised that it worked out well and brought out the authors’ particular knowledge and specialty. The interview format allows us to see two experts dialoguing on the issue with the readers being able to “listen in.”
It was thoughtful of the authors to have helpful summary in the back of some of the chapters; for instance, there is an outline for the “Process for Medical Ethical Decision Making” after the chapter on how the Bible communicate to the Twenty First Century and a helpful list of suggestions of practical ways the church may help with the issue of abortion. In fact, the book was constantly giving practical advice to the readers. For instance I found the chapter on human dignity and dying to be very practical as a pastor to think about how to minister to those who are dying—and also got me thinking about my own death as well. As the book documented, we are in an interesting age in history in which many people in the West have the privilege of not having to constantly think about death as many people in the past have to face.
I would encourage that if one were to read this book to read it with a highlighter since there are a lot of information. I learned a lot reading this! I enjoyed learning the historical background of the Hippocratic Oath, its pagan origin and how it was later adapted to reflect a Christian worldview. I was also surprised to learn how it is not an administered oath for doctors today. The book also discussed about the Christian origin of hospitals and historic precedence for caring the sick. The book did a good job defining terms and my only criticism of the book is that it would be nice to see a glossary given the many acronym and medical terms used it could be easy for a general audience to forget them. One helpful discussion about defining terms is the book’s discussion about the problem of defining death in terms of brain activity or the lack thereof. The book mentioned that there has been documented case of over 175 “brain dead” long term survivors which should definitely serve as a caution. I also appreciate the book’s discussion about the mechanics of cloning and embryonic stem cells.
I highly recommend this book.
NOTE: I received this book for free from the publisher B&H Publishing Group through Cross Focused Reviews in exchange for my honest opinion. The thoughts and words are my own and I was under no obligation to provide a favorable review.

[Cliff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book. Helped me solidify my thinking in some areas and change it in others.

[David Hodges · Rating 4 out of 5]

The full version of this abridged review may view found on the Pious Eye site (reviewer’s blog).

C. Ben Mitchell and D. Joy Riley’s Christian Bioethics is described by its publisher (B&H Academic) as a “needed guide for pastors, clinicians, students, and laypeople” (back cover) that hopes “to help readers discover how biblical theology, Christian ethics, and contemporary science and medicine intersect in the real world where people are making life-changing decisions” (2). Unlike some collaborations, this one maintains a distinction between each author’s contributions by adopting a dialog format. While I am not perfectly satisfied with Mitchell and Riley’s arguments at every point, I can recommend the text as a solid, helpful survey of (and introduction to) bioethics. Some remarks on each chapter follow.

The Introduction (1-5) notes Mitchell and Riley’s starting assumptions (Christian worldview, historic orthodoxy, necessary coherence between Scripture and science) and explains the book’s organization (inspired by Theologian Nigel Cameron), which divides treatment of issues in bioethics into “Taking Life” (Part II; chapters 3-4), “Making Life” (Part III, chapters 5-7), and “Remaking/Faking Life” (Part IV, chapter 8), plus a Conclusion. Sufficiently strict Biblical Creationists, those inclined to challenge proposals of “gaps” in the Genesis genealogies, may be uncomfortable with the statement that “surgical interventions date back to around 9000 BC,” which takes secular dating methods for granted. Such persons might even be mildly uneasy with the failure of Mitchell and Riley to note Scripture’s primacy when they describe “science and faith, medicine and theology” as “realms of knowledge” or “sources of truth.”

Chapter 1, “Which Doctors? Whose Medicine” (9-23), like remaining chapters in the book, begins with a case study, followed by “Questions for Reflection.” Here, the case study concerns a doctor who gives a patient a dose of morphine that the doctor knows will have “the inevitable...effect” of killing that patient in a situation where the patient’s desire for or consent to such an “assisted suicide” is ambiguous. Discussion of this case leads to reflection on the Hippocratic Oath, which is little used today, and the history of the Oath and of medicine in the Christian West (how the Oath was Christianized by the tenth century, how Christian faith motivated care for the ill and the founding of hospitals, and so on) and of related ethical debate and the development of a separate field of bioethics. Mitchell and Riley advocate a return to “the higher moral ground” once exemplified by the Hippocratic Oath; only through such a return, they maintain, can we “achieve the proper ends of medicine.”

Chapter 2, “From Ancient Book to the Twenty-First Century” (25-42), discusses how to apply Scripture to ethical questions arising out of contemporary life science developments that Scripture’s original recipients could scarcely have imagined. After rejecting possible approaches to Scripture that would be too one-dimensional and simplistic, Mitchell and Riley propose a composite view that combines the insights of all the one-dimensional approaches, recognizing that “God’s moral instruction comes to us in the form of commands and principles and is also revealed [through the biblical narrative] in Christian virtues and examples.” They label this approach “The Bible as Canonical Revelation of Divine Commands and Christian Virtues.” One particularly noteworthy statement in the chapter is Mitchell’s description of the meaning of 2 Peter 1:3: “In other words,” he writes, “God has not left his people without guidance in every area of life. Although the Bible is not a science textbook, its message speaks to the deep underlying values that can guide decisions about scientific matters. Although the Bible is not a manual of medicine, its truths may be applied to medical decision making.”

The chapter includes basic discussion of hermeneutics, bringing to readers’ attention such common principles as “whenever possible Scripture should be read in its historical and cultural context” (hermeneutical discussion in this chapter relies heavily on Fedler’s Exploring Christian Ethics ). Readers worried by the Introduction’s failure to emphasize the primacy of Scripture will welcome the statement here that “Scripture is primary, normative, and authoritative.” The chapter’s conclusion, however, may revive such readers’ discomfort. The authors write: “Christians must read and interpret two books of revelation: the book of God and the book of nature....God has made himself known in Scripture and in nature....Thus, in order to understand God’s revelation most fully, we study both the Bible and nature, written revelation and created revelation.” While there is certainly nothing objectionable about seeing Scripture and nature as in some ways analogous, the identification of both Scripture and nature as “books” does risk implying that Scripture (which is verbal) and nature (which is not verbal) are equally clear and that information humans derive from Scripture has no greater authority than information they (believe they) derive from nature. Such “two [equally clear] books” thinking has led some individuals, on the basis of their “reading” of the “book” of nature, to impose upon portions of Scripture interpretive schemes that would never have occurred to its original recipients. I discern no evidence of such error in Mitchell and Riley’s discussion, but I would welcome more careful emphasis on how the clarity and authority of God-breathed Scripture surpasses the nonverbal ambiguity and “mixed signals” of fallen nature.

Chapter 3, “The Sanctity of Human Life and Abortion” (45-65), describes the various types of abortion, explains the meaning and implications of belief in the sanctity of human life, and shows how that belief is justified and informed by the scriptural teaching that humans are made in the image of God. The bottom line: “the witness of Scripture and the testimony of the early church are that every human being, from conception through natural death, is to be respected as an imager of God whose life has special dignity.” In addition to the church history alluded to in this quotation, the chapter looks at some pre-Christian Hebrew thought and summarizes the history of abortion legalization that reached it permissive peak with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings. Overall, this is a solid and helpful chapter.

Chapter 4, “Human Dignity and Dying” (67-104), addresses end-of-life issues, most notably “euthanasia.” Though once called “passive euthanasia,” the “removal of life-sustaining treatments like breathing machines and technologically or ‘artificially’ administered nutrition and hydration” is now “a separate category in ethics discussion” since “most people recognize that a time can come for removing technology, with proper consent, so that the dying process can proceed.” Forms of euthanasia still generally called such are “voluntary active” (physician assists at patient’s request), “nonvoluntary” (physician effects without patient input), and “involuntary” (physician kills patients against patient’s wishes). While noting that “early theologians were consistent in their insistence that suicide was sub-Christian at best because hope and love sustain patience” in the midst of suffering (102), the chapter fails to directly address what seems to me the most fundamental issue in debates over suicide, euthanasia, and other end-of-life issues: Who owns humans’ bodies and lives? The biblical answer would seem to be that God, their creator, does. The dangers that what begins as voluntary may become involuntary, and that healers who also function as killers could hardly be trusted, do not provide nearly so certain a foundation for opposing euthanasia and suicide as does uncompromising affirmation that humans do not own their lives and bodies, but are only stewards of them for the God who made them and who places strict limits on how they may be used. The former dangers call for safeguards (a “euthanasia provider” career separate from healing medical practice, laws to ensure consent); the latter affirmation forbids willful life-termination, with or without consent, unless authorized by God himself (as in Genesis 9:6, for example).

Because advocates of euthanasia generally justify it as a way to relieve suffering, a fair portion of the chapter is committed to clarifying what is meant by “pain” and “suffering” and to developing a theological and philosophical understanding of “the problem of suffering” or “the problem of pain.” One aspect of this discussion leave me less than entirely satisfied is the attempt at theodicy (justifying God’s ways to humans). The chapter offers the standard “free will” defense of God’s justice: “The consequences of the fall into sin being what they are, any day without suffering is a day of grace and mercy....suffering is deserved. God is just in allowing suffering. In other words, the important question is not, Why do bad things happen to good people? But, Why do good things happen to bad people?” Or, in the words of Peter Kreeft, suffering is “from us, not from God; from our misuse of our free will” (quoting from Kreeft’s Making Sense of Suffering ). This approach to suffering has long been very popular. I confess, however, that it hasn’t worked for me for some time. If one is comfortable making human free will ultimately determinative of whatever comes to pass, if one doesn’t mind treating God’s sovereignty as something that works with or works around free creaturely decisions over which God has no control, and if one is comfortable embracing a justification of God’s ways to humans that Scripture itself never teaches and in fact (in the book of Job; see also Romans 9:19-24) seems to suggest goes beyond the prerogative of creatures, one might find the “it’s all about human free will” explanation satisfactory. If, on the other hand, one believes that God is truly and completely in control, that his sovereign eternal decree includes free creaturely decisions (that creaturely freedom is secondary and derivative, not ultimate; that “freedom” as commonly conceived does not exist for created beings), one will not be so satisfied.

Chapter 5, “Infertility and Assisted Reproductive Technologies” (107-27), discusses such things as in vitro fertilization (IVF), use of donor sperm and eggs, and surrogacy. It grapples with the ethical issues resulting from these developments in terms of the already-developed understanding of the sanctity of every human life and the awareness “that pregnancy occurs at fertilization rather than at implantation [of the new life in the uterine wall].” This is an informative and useful chapter. Since the reality that sacred human life begins prior to implantation is emphasized, in order to show the wrongness of “reproductive technologies” that end up never implanting and finally destroying “excess embryos,” the chapter might have taken a few sentences to note how “the abortion pill” is not the only medication that can end a pregnancy already in progress, since this is also how some standard “contraceptives” can end up working.

Chapter 6, “Organ Donation and Transplantation” (129-48), discusses ethical issues related to organ donation. Because most organ donation requires a dead donor (at least for now), this is the chapter where questions about when and how to label someone “dead” are addressed. Whereas prior to ability to measure brain activity the standard for determining death was cessation of heart and lung activity, cessation of brain activity (either of the whole brain or only of areas deemed essential to human consciousness) has more recently been considered an acceptable standard. One particularly interesting revelation of the chapter is that it is not unheard of for persons declared “brain dead” to recover.

Chapter 7, “Clones and Human-Animal Hybrids” (149-65), discusses cloning, including that involving placing nuclei of one species into the enucleated (nucleus removed) eggs of another species to create “hybrids.” This chapter especially well illustrates the morally confused thinking dominant in contemporary secular culture, since the legal environment sees no problem with creating human embryos (or human-animal hybrid embryos) through cloning for experimental purposes or medical use (“therapeutic cloning”) but (so far) tends to strongly condemn and forbid implanting cloned human embryos in human wombs to live and mature (“reproductive cloning”). One especially interesting item discussed in the chapter is the creation of embryos from gametes of three persons (what the chapter calls “Embryos with three parents”) as a way “to avoid mitochondrial diseases.” Since mitochondria are passed from mothers to children separate from the nuclear DNA to which both parents contribute, one could prevent inheritance of mitochondrial disease from a mother by transferring the nucleus of the mother into the egg of a donor (whether this would be done before or after fertilization is not stated). “The resulting child,” Riley summarizes, “would have the chromosomes (nuclear DNA) of his/her mother and father and the mitochondrial DNA of the egg donor [“second mother” if one accepts the “three parents” description].” Mitchell and Riley see this as ethically problematic and fear a “slippery slope” to “designer children,” but I confess it sounds to me closely analogous to organ transplantation. The blueprint of what makes a person a person, and makes a given individual the “child” of two other individuals, would seem to be the nuclear DNA; “transplant” of the rest of the cell from an unfertilized egg with healthy mitochondria doesn’t strike me as ethically problematic or as creating a child with “three parents.” In any case, Mitchell and Riley believe that “all human cloning should be forthrightly banned,” as should creation of “human-animal hybrid embryos,” and their case against most aspects of these practices seems sound.

Chapter 8, “Aging and Life-Extension Technologies” (169-83), discusses efforts to extend the human lifespan or, more audaciously, to achieve immortality and to surpass other human limitations, through various means (health maintenance through nanotechnology, slowing or arresting the process of “growing old,” transfer of human consciousnesses into robots or virtual environments, technological enhancement of human mental and physical capabilities beyond natural limits, etc.). In the chapter, Mitchell sets forth the position that “Aging is not a disease to be cured but a reality of the human condition to be celebrated,” offering Proverbs 16:31 as support for this view. I’m not entirely convinced by this line of reasoning. In our fallen context, where the only alternative is to die young (perhaps because one does not follow the longevity-friendly “way of righteousness”), living to a gray- or white-haired old age (perhaps as a result of following “the way of righteousness”) is indeed something to be celebrated. But this fact doesn’t quite identify any of the “negative” aspects of aging as preferable to (were it possible) retention of the optimal capacities of one’s “prime” for a longer time. Whereas some transhumanist aspirations doubtless violate Christian morals (and will be proven incompatible with humans’ created nature), the quest to extend lifespan, to slow or stop (or reverse or repair) the negative effects of aging, does not strike me as fundamentally different from the broader efforts of medical and related sciences to reduce the effects of the fall on human life and health.

One reason I think the discussion goes astray is that “aging” is used so freely today as a shorthand for the negative (degenerative) effects of aging. Thus, the chapter can conclude by lamenting how our culture “has come to loath every facet of aging.” Is this true, though? One facet of aging is the acquisition of experience and, ideally, of wisdom. Does our culture, does anyone, really “loath” this? Even those who most pine away for lost youth dream of reliving it “knowing what they know now.” The other facet of aging is the deterioration that results as bodily self-repair falls progressively behind degenerative processes. Those who dream of “curing aging” probably shouldn’t use the term “aging,” since they have no desire to eliminate growth in experience and wisdom. For instance, the late Roy Walford (died 2004) thought degeneration and death unfortunate because acquiring the experience and wisdom to live well takes so much time: “It’s a shame to die so young, because it takes so long to learn how to live” (Foreword to Brian Delaney and Lisa Walford’s The Longevity Diet , xiv). Trying to figure out why bodily self-repair inevitably falls behind degeneration, and to determine if there are ways to keep self-repair ahead of degeneration for a longer time or indefinitely (by “fixing” whatever aspect of the human organism prevents self-repair from keeping up or by supplementing self-repair with technology, such as “nanobots”), may indeed be a quest destined to fail, but it does not strike me as dehumanizing or necessarily unbiblical. Degeneration and death are results of the fall, not essential qualities of being human. Scripture does suggest, of course, that physical death, and so the degenerative processes that bring it about, is a mercy: living forever in our fallen state, it appears, would not be a good thing (Genesis 3:22-24). Still, there is nothing in this to suggest that much longer lives would be a problem (the long lives in Genesis are never identified as problematic simply because long), and many Christians might rather wait to be translated at the Second Coming than endure degeneration and death.

The Conclusion (185-97), “Preserving Our Humanity in a Biotech Century” (185-97), offers some final thoughts, such as endorsement of pregnancy care centers as a way to oppose abortion by making it easier to “choose life.”

The book, as a whole, makes persuasive arguments on most points and provides adequate coverage of the range of issues in contemporary bioethics. It is worthwhile reading.

[Craig Hurst · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone has a moral standard. Everyone has a moral position on abortion, capital punishment, orphanhood, plastic surgery, etc. But while everyone could tell you what their moral position is they cannot necessarily tell you why that is their moral position. Morals tell us what we will and will not do but ethics tell us why we will and will not do those things. Ethics are the science (or reasons) behind our morals and morals are our ethics in practice. Most people do not think far enough into the ethics behind their morals. Unfortunately, Christians do the same thing. Many don’t bother to examine the why questions and others don’t know how to.

As science continues to make new discoveries that greatly benefit the medical community, and those who receive its care, there has come with those advancements a whole host of ethical dilemmas that Christians must face – both medical professional and patient alike. To help Christians chart through the myriad of ethical decisions they will need to make in the current bioethics world, D. Joy Riley, MD and C. Ben Mitchell, PhD have teamed up to bring us Christian Bioethics: A Guide for Pastors, Health Care Professionals, and Families (B&H, 2015). This is the fourth book in the B&H Studies in Christian Ethics series. What is great about this book is that we have both a theologian and medical doctor in dialogue working through the issues. This professional balance offers a more well rounded and wholistic picture of how to think through the various situations.

Mitchell and Riley divide the book under three categories of bioethical issues: (1) taking life, (2) making life, and (3) remaking/faking life. Each chapter introduces the issue at hand with a real case. The issues each case raises are, mostly, addressed throughout the chapter through a dialogue between the two authors. Far from making the discussion juvenile, the question and answering back and forth provides a deep conversational feel to the book that draws the reader in more to what is being said. It makes the book really hard to put down.

There are several things that stand out in this book. First, readers will be fascinated by the medical history that the authors discuss. Many people outside of the medical field will be surprised to know that most doctors, upon graduation, have never read the Hippocratic Oath, though they are asked to repeat it at graduation – and that is if they are even asked to repeat it (16-17). The first abortion law was enacted in Connecticut in 1821 (51). The first organ to be transplanted was a kidney in 1954 (132). The first successful cloned sheep was Dolly in 1997 (151). The first human “avatar” is hoped to be completed by 2045 under the work of the Russian 2045 Movement (169).

What the history of medical advancement shows us is that what we see happening today owes its existence to a long line of previous advancements. When we trace the history of life saving advancements we realize that we have advanced in the last 10 years much further than we did in the last 50 or more. The more we advance the faster we advance and are able to respond to the needs/demands of the medical field.

Second, readers will see that while one does not have to be a Christian to do and think about medicine and ethics, there is a Christian way to do so. This Christian way of thinking about bioethics starts with the doctrine that God made man in his image (Gen. 1:17). Since all of human life bears God’s image then all stages of human life are to be treated with dignity and respect. Whether it is life that begins at the moment of conception in the womb (chapter 3) or it is life at its end (chapter 4), all of life has value. This especially comes to light when discussing the sanctity of human life and the issue of abortion. If what is in the womb is a human life then it is to be treated as any human (whether in womb or out of the womb) is treated. Further, the authors help us to see how this truth applies to how we think about reproductive technologies such as the ever controversial in vitro fertilization (IVF) (chapter 5). How one views the ontology of a person will influence how one treats a human.

Third, the authors serve the reader well as they clearly articulate good theology and apply it to the many bio-ethical discussions they have. Mitchell urges readers to see the Bible, in relation to making ethical decisions, “as a canonical revelation of God’s commands and Christian virtues.” (31) The Bible is the beginning of the Christians inquiry into any ethical discussion. We are asking ourselves, “What does God say about this?” Also, since God created the world and our bodies, Christians need to be at the forefront of understanding ourselves and the world He has created us to live in. In addition to knowing the “book of the world” (nature), the authors encourage Christians to know “the book of self.” (37) That is, in order to make good ethical medical decisions, it is not enough to ask doctors and medical professionals but we are responsible to know the human body in general and our own bodies in particular. It is the faithful study of the Word of God and the world of God that enables us to make ethical decisions. “Christians have nothing to fear from truthful science, and science has nothing to fear from faithful biblical interpretation.” (41)

Mitchell and Riley have served the church well with this guide for how to think through the intersection between theology and bioethics. They help us to navigate through the thick theological and medical discussions inherent in the life and death decisions we will all be faced with at one time or another. They do not sugarcoat the issues. While disease, suffering, pain, and death are not supposed to be, they are a part of the world we live in. They remind us of our humanity and fragility. Though as creatures we inherently have limitations, these things bring us even more of them. Mitchell and Riley have charted a path through these limitations that serve as a faithful and responsible way to think about them.

See other book in the B&H Studies in Christian Ehtics:

Taking Christian Moral Though Seriously: The Legitimacy of Religious Beliefs in the Marketplace of Ideas Ed. by Jeremy A. Evans & Daniel Heimbach

Moral Apologetics for Contemporary Christians: Pushing Back Against Cultural and Religious Critics by Mark Coppenger

An Introduction to Biblical Ethics by David Jones

This review was originally published on SharperIron.

I received this book for free from B&H for this review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

[Jeremiah Whiteman · Rating 5 out of 5]

I happened to come across this book almost two weeks ago and figured it’d be good to pick up since I’m taking a Bioethics class this semester. I found that the information that Ben Mitchell and Joy Riley provide concur with the data that you’ll find in other bioethics textbooks, but this is clearly defined by a Christian worldview of medicine, technology, and ethics. I was greatly encouraged by the end of the book by the fact that there are Christians in this arena, and that we can appeal to Scripture to appeal to these issues such as abortion, cloning, end-of-life care, etc. Christian, if you want to be informed, this is the book for you.

[Kristina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written guide to bioethics issues without too much detail for an introduction. Much of the book is a conversational interview style between the authors with practical conclusions for further implementation.

[Flynn Evans · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though it provided helpful pointers and solid source material at times, I found this text to be overall pretty prosaic. The dialogical format, intended to demonstrate the constructive dialectic that ideally takes place between theology and medicine, was quite unnecessary.

[Andrew Teesdale · Rating 1 out of 5]

It was OK. Felt like some of the things in it were a bit contrived.

[molly kee · Rating 2 out of 5]

booooooooooooooooo sorry

[Matthew Boutilier · Rating 5 out of 5]

Christian Bioethics: A Guide for Pastors, Health Care Professionals, and Families
A Review
C. Ben Mitchell, PHD & D. Joy Riley, MD, Series Editor Daniel R. Heimbach




Decisions are never easy. Although we as Christians have been blessed with all that we need to live a life of holiness and one that is pleasing to God as is revealed in His Word, it does not give us specific instructions for every decision that we will make as we live on this earth. I believe that is intentional due to the fact that God wants His children to be completely dependent upon Him and not be reactive spiritual robots who only “choose” to do what is clearly described for them in His Word. Life is complicated. The web becomes increasingly tangled as we consider the many scenarios that are possible in the realms of bioethics. Scripture clearly teaches us that life is sacred. There are a myriad of examples that are available to us that help us to understand how valuable life is to God and should be to us.

With that being said, Mitchell and Riley provide several difficult situations where sometimes the boundary lines become fuzzy and the rhetoric over what is right and what is wrong as well as personal liberties and whose life is more valuable become difficult to weigh through. The questions are tough and the answers are even tougher, even from a Christian perspective. We, as believer’s value life as sacred in the eyes of God. Yet, how do we understand what we are supposed to do when someone we love is on life support and the doctors have determined that he is technically dead and that the machines he is attached to is only keeping him breathing and that he has no brain activity? Is it wrong to remove that “life” support? What about when loved one does not leave the family an advanced directive regarding what their wishes are in case of an accident and they are involved in that accident? How do we respond in accord to what we believe would be their desires, yet also maintaining sensitivity to what we believe to be our biblical convictions? What about young families who are unable to physically have children naturally, but desire to have a baby? Is in-vitro fertilization an ethical option from a biblical perspective? What if we know that it involves the destruction of human embryos in the process?

These types of very real-life scenarios and many more complex case studies provide the framework on this highly valuable handbook. It makes you think deeply and critically regarding the issues. It also gives the reader a wake-up call to make sure that you clearly make your wishes known if something would ever happen to you regarding life support. It has given me much more respect for the medical profession who has to make these types of difficult decisions as well as counsel those who are wrestling with doing the right thing as well as filtering those decisions from a biblical lens.

While this handbook does not give us the directives of what to do in every specific situation that they describe, the authors are very clear to give their audience instruction as to how to go about making clear, honest, biblically ethical decisions. It can be easy to point fingers and blame the liberal media and political leaders for how they have distorted the issues as to when life begins, when life is no longer meaningful, and what the definition of human dignity is. Yet, in my humble opinion, these questions and the scenarios that have been provided as examples to push us to dig deeper and to see more clearly into the quagmire of bioethics, it serves instead as a mirror. It serves as a mirror to the extent that perhaps the situations that have arisen in our midst are there because we as Christians have fallen asleep at the wheel. We have been too silent as to not offend and have been naïve in thinking that this nasty thing will just go away. We definitely need biblically-focused professionals to help us to clearly understand what is happening in medical research and to be in the heat of battle to make sure that human life is valued and not marketed for the sake of the “haves” at the sacrifice of the “have nots” in our society.



I would like to extend my gratitude to Cross-Focused Media for the free copy of the book for me to offer this unbiased, balanced review as well as B&H Academic.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Modern medicine poses ethical dilemmas for Christians. Controversial issues like abortion, euthanasia, in vitro fertilization, cloning and genetic engineering challenge Christian views of morality and human dignity. But how are followers of Jesus supposed to make decisions about health care and life and death?

Christian Bioethics was written to provide guidance for pastors, health care professionals and families. C. Ben Mitchell, PhD, and D. Joy Riley, MD conduct a dialogue on a range of topics. Mitchel is Professor of Moral Philosophy at Union University and Riley is physician specializing in Internal Medicine and the director of the Tennessee Center for Bioethics. Together they frame the issues, discuss relevant scriptures and share their suggestions of how Christians ought to respond.

Mitchell and Riley argue for a return to the Hippocratic and Christian tradition of medicine. They urge physicians to heal not harm and promote respect for the dignity of human persons. Their ethical discussion ranges from Taking Life (abortion and euthanasia) to Making Life ( Infertility and reporductive technologies, organ donation, cloning and animal-human hybrids) to faking/remaking life (aging and life extending technologies). The two of them are adept at framing the issue and limiting what they are talking about. They also say some thoughtful stuff. I particularly enjoyed their discussion on dying and their reference to both the Bible and to the Christian tradition. Quite a lot has been written on the topic of 'dying well' and Mitchell and Riley bring things together in a winsome and relevant manner.

Rather than sharing their thoughts on every issue, I would like to share what I found most helpful. I think the biggest value of the book is their ethical framework. On pages 41-2 they layout the process for medical ethical decision making:

Define the ethical issue or problem
Clarify the issue.
Pray for Illumination by the Holy Spirit.
Glean the medical data on the issue
What is the diagnosis?
What are the available treatments?
What are the possible outcomes
Are there complications?
Are there implications for spouse, family members, or others?
What precisely is the moral question(s) to be answered?
Glean the Scriptural data on the question, identifying the biblical issue:
Precepts or Commands
Principles
Examples
Study the scriptural instruction carefully:
What does the text say?
What does the text mean?
What is the genre?
What are the literary style and organization?
What definitions and grammar are significant?
What is the context?
What are the overall theme, purpose and historical significance
Apply the biblical instruction to formulate a potential answer.
Engage in dialogue with the Christian community.
Study the views of the church down through the ages
Formulate a decision. (41-2)
This method delineates the approach that Mitchell and Riley attempt throughout this book. I really appreciated the care by which they approached the issue and sought out the wisdom of scripture with hermeneutic sensitivity. They make judicious use of the Bible. I am in general agreement with their conclusions (pro life, human dignity and trust in God) but I think this hermeneutic piece is the most helpful, especially since neither is a specialist in theology or biblical literature.

One small criticism is that Mitchell and Riley claim this book is a 'guide for pastors, health care professionals and families.' I can readily see how pastors and families would benefit. I think health care professionals would to, but they spend too much time explaining medical terms, issues and procedures in dumbed-down layman terms for people in the discipline. I think most people who work in healthcare would find these parts of the book overly simple. I would think a more technical volume would probably be of more value for those in health care.

I am happy to have this book as part of my pastoral library (alongside other books like Shuman and Volck's Reclaiming the Body). It does a good job of connecting the Bible to contemporary life issues. I give this book four stars. ★★★★

Notice of material connection: I received this book from the publisher via Cross Focused Reviews in exchange for my honest review.

[Doug Hibbard · Rating 4 out of 5]

This stuff matters more than you realize in these days. Consider, for example, the paraplegic who needs ongoing medical care. It’s expensive, extremely so, and isn’t going to add to “quality of life.” But is life enough? I’ve always argued “YES.” Beyond that, though, what’s the argument for it?

Or the child that you know will be born with difficulties? What of the aging senior citizen who provides nothing further of monetary value to the economy and instead requires ongoing medical care?

These issues affect the church and the people within it. Many of them seem quite simple in the abstract, but Christian Bioethics does a great job of bringing home the complexity for those of us without medical degrees. As long, I think, as you have some basic competence in science, you can understand what is happening here.

Further, Drs. Mitchell & Riley demonstrate a grasp of Scripture. They do not attempt to get out of the demands and rigors of God’s Word, but attempt to connect action in the modern age with imperatives that are eternal.

I like this as a study text for pastors and professionals. I think as a guide for families, it’s more suited to study before the events than as a “here, you’re in the middle of a crisis, read this” book.



I did receive a free copy of this book in exchange for the review.

[Jonathan Roberts · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ever wonder what it would be like to be a fly on the wall of a discussion between a theologian, and a physician as they discuss modern day bioethical dilemmas? Then this is the book for you. Theologian C. Ben Mitchell from Union University and board certified internal medicine doctor D. Joy Riley have put together a spectacular book for those with questions dealing with the convoluted medical world of today.

The book is broken down into four sections: Christian Bioethics (an introduction), Taking Life, Making Life and Remaking/Faking Life.

Each section starts with an anecdotal story that sets the tone (nicely followed by discussion questions) and then the two doctors begin discussing the major issues of each topic being discussed. This is a unique way to get the information across and it is in no way lacking due to this approach, in fact I found it very refreshing and thorough.

I would highly recommend this book for anyone interested in the bioethical dilemmas currently in the news today, you could do a lot worse than running out and buying this book right away.

Highest recommendation