|
The
Difference Between "Possible" and "Potential" Human
Persons and Why It Matters in Christian Medical Ethics
May 27,
2007. When
discussing issues in Christian medical ethics we often fail to distinguish
between "potential" and "possible" human
persons. This is a mistake, one with unfortunate practical
consequences.
Consider a
pebble. No matter how it interacts with one or more other pebbles it
can never become a human person. For every pebble on every beach
this is an "impossibility."
A single sperm
or ovum does have the "possibility" of becoming a human person
because this can happen if it establishes and maintains the right kind of
relationships; however, in and of itself, neither the sperm nor the ovum
has human "potentiality" because on its own it lacks the inherent
power to accomplish this.
This why we do
not try to rescue sperm and ova and why we do not mourn their loss.
This is also why we need not not have ethical reservations about
contraceptive methods that prevent fertilization.
The presence
or absence of this inherent power divides the truly potential from
the merely possible. We see this in related words such as
"potentate," "potency" and
"impotency."
Inherent power or the lack of it makes all
the difference.
This criterion
also establishes that a fertilized ovum is a "possible" human
person but not a "potential" one until it is successfully
implanted in the uterus. This is because a fertilized ovum
that has not implanted also lacks the required inherent power."
A
"possible" human person becomes a "potential" one when
a sperm fertilizes an ovum and the new entity successfully implants.
Many fertilized ova never implant. The body discards them in the
normal course of things, a process that we all regard as
"natural." This should teach us much.
The correct
distinction between the "possible" and the "potential"
is an ethical blade that cuts both ways. On the one hand, it makes
miscarriages and abortions, events that terminate the lives of implanted
fertilized ova, more regrettable than contraceptives. Because they are
the result of human intervention rather than misfortune, abortions are
more regrettable than miscarriages, ethically and otherwise.
This does not
mean that all abortions are unethical; however, it does mean that careful studies of the facts, alternatives and pertinent ethical
principles should precede them.
On the other
hand, this distinction makes it possible ethically to endorse those
contraceptive measures that prevent implantation rather than
fertilization. It makes it ethically possible to discard
fertilized but unneeded ova in in vitro fertilization clinics too.
Distinguishing
between "possible" and "potential" human persons, and
doing so in a way that is faithful to the root meanings of these words and
to the relevant facts and norms, makes it morally permissible to utilize
embryos in stem cell research and therapy. This is
something that Christians can support with clear consciences.
|