Biblical Reflections on Modern Medicine
Vol. 6, No. 6 (36)
Contents:
In the last issue of Reflections (September
1995), an article by Robert E. Wells challenged the label "pro-life"
as "Biblically indefensible." In an introductory note, I offered
readers the opportunity to respond to his article. Such letters
often extend or challenge my own thinking, so I enjoy the
interaction. However, this time only one person responded! (See
Letters-to-Ed.)
Mr. Wells has certainly brought a considerable
challenge to the pro-life movement, as well as a needed
clarification. We shall see that errors by pro-lifers(1) may be
caused by this mis-labeling.
I prefer, however, the position that "pro-life" is
"Biblically incomplete" rather than Mr. Wells' "Biblically
indefensible." I begin in a backward direction. In my first book,
Biblical/Medical Ethics, wrestling with end-of-life issues, it
came to mind that there are four kinds of death in the Bible.(2,3)
The first simply is physical death - Matthew 9:18, I Corinthians
15:3, etc. The second is God's curse on mankind for Adam's sin that
continues in the unregenerate - Genesis 2:15-17, Romans 7:24, etc.
The third is the death of this absence of life,
i.e., death of the believer to his former way of life - Romans
6:2-14. The fourth is the second death or confinement of the
unregenerate to Hell forever - Revelation 2:11, 20:6, etc.
By connotation, death is "The End" of that to which
it is applied. However, in each of the ways above, death is more
accurately separation: the separation of the soul from the
body, of the soul from God's Spirit, of the person (soul and body)
from its unregenerate state ("old man"), and of the person (body and
soul) from God's presence forever. To the contrary, "life" is
communion: of the soul with the body, of the soul in the
unregenerate state, of the soul with God's spirit, and of the person
(body and soul) with God forever.
Thus, God is "pro-life" in a broader and deeper way
than physical life. Moreover, the Biblical priority is on spiritual
life rather than physical life. Thus, a missionary may place his own
and his family's physical life at great risk to go into Third World
areas to bring spiritual life to those who are "dead in trespasses
and sin." Further, that spiritual life is to be discipled,
nourished, and disciplined by the local church (Ephesians 4:11-16).
We see, then, that fighting abortion and euthanasia
are secondary on God's agenda. His primary agenda is
evangelism and life-generating churches. While fighting abortion is
consistent with this primary agenda, Christians must be careful that
it is not compromised by secondary agendas. Individual Christians or
churches who are not "growing in grace" ought not to be concerned
with fighting abortion. They have left their "first love"
(Revelation 2:4).
There Is More, and It's Not Pretty!
There is a beautiful and coherent unity to God's
plan for His people and the world. Within that unity is not only
spiritual life, but greater physical life. "The wages of sin is
death" (Romans 6:23) refers not only to actual death of the body,
but also to disease and disability. God's instructions promote
physical life and health as well as spiritual growth.
God's ways increase the extent of life (Psalm
90:10). God's instruction in marital fidelity prevents sexually
transmitted diseases (Genesis 2:24). Faith in God decreases anxiety
(Matthew 6:25-34). Faith limits anger, an emotion that harms self
and others (Ephesians 4:26). God commands rest, a healing attitude
and behavior (Exodus 20:8-11).
God's ways increase physical life through social
and government policy.(4) I recently had the honor to hear Alan
Keyes speak. One of his points was that most serious problems that
we face as a society and nation (welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, crime,
drug abuse, homosexuality, abortion, etc.) can be prevented by
responsible families.
Of course, the family must be backed up by and
supported by government policy and the Church. God intended that the
government punish evil with the sword (Romans 13:3-4). Now, please
tell me where "evil" can be defined other than from the Bible! Also,
tell me how any concept of the "sword" is consistent with our
prison system and revolving-door "justice."
God Is
Pro-life, and Anti-abortion Is Proper
So, God is pro-life, but His "life" is much broader
and deeper than abortion. And, this truncated view of pro-lifers has
weakened and limited the fullness of God's pro-life posture. (I have
written on all these on many occasions, so I only list them here.)
Pro-lifers have distorted the use of medical means
in extremes of disease and disability (not limited to the terminally
ill or actively dying). Pro-lifers have been terribly inconsistent
on capital punishment, just wars, and self-defense. Pro-lifers have
been blinded by the disease and death caused by government
policy on welfare that produces generations of dependent people and
by the historical fact and Biblical truth that some people just want
to wallow in their misery and filth (Matthew 26:11, II Thessalonians
3:10, etc.).
Pro-lifers have advocated government theft
(taxation) to pay for this welfare and for medical programs
(Medicare and Medicaid) that bring little in the way of health and
healing to recipients. Pro-lifers have further advocated theft from
businesses engaged in free enterprise in the form of OSHA
regulations and the Americans with Disability Act.
No, pro-lifers are not pro-God's fullness of life.
They are narrowly anti-abortion or anti-euthanasia. That they have
chosen to be "pro-life" is instructive of their limited
understanding of God's plan.
Modern psychology has taught us that being "for"
(pro) something is more effective that being "against" (anti). I
once bought a writing analysis program. It almost choked on the
negatives that it found in my writing. Being negative is just not
acceptable. Oh? There are some negatives in the Bible, the most
prominent of which are "Thou shalt not...."
Modern psychology has taught much more that
"pro-lifers" have accepted, several practices of which are described
above. Another platitude is "Hate the sin and love the sinner."
Let's see. God will save the sinner from Hell and send only his sin
there. Uh, I don't think so! God is no more pro-sinner than He is
pro-sin.
Also, modern concepts of social policy and
government (derived from humanism) are prevalent throughout the
pro-life movement. As a Trojan horse, pro-lifers have invited them
in, only to become overrun with their concepts.
All Is
Not Lost: Hope in Abraham Kuyper's Vision
Abraham Kuyper was a Dutch theologian whose life
overlapped the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. Through his
writings and influence, he eventually became Prime Minister of the
Netherlands. His monumental work is Principles of Sacred Theology.(5)
One of his beliefs is that the gold of Scripture is mined through
conflict with paganism (humanism). For example, the issue of
abortion has caused Christians to mine a bulwark of truths against
this ungodly practice.
But, today, we are overwhelmed with ungodly
practices. We need a comprehensive, coherent pro-life position.
Abortion is only one dimension of that position.
I don't know what the best substitute for "pro-life"
is. I suggest that Christians substitute "pro-Scripture." In the Old
and New Testaments, "Thus saith the Lord" was proclaimed. In my
attack on the resurrection of the Hippocratic Oath, I have become
more convinced that we must get our battle into religious terms -
our religion vs. their religion. Ethics are a matter of religious
belief. They come from nowhere else. Laws are based upon someone's
ethics. Thus, religions are the heart of the debate!
Christians have lost the battle when they try to be
allies with non-Christians. They have given away what is ultimately
both their offense and their defense -- the Bible. The Bible (God)
does not speak lightly of the conflict. The "world" is anti-God
(Romans 12:1). Satan is certainly anti-God and anti-Christians
(Genesis 3:1-7, I Peter 5:8, etc.). Why do we seek to be allies with
enemies of our faith and our God?
Mr. Wells has raised an important issue. I have
clarified it further. Christians need to expand their concept of
"pro-life." I don't know any other term than "pro-Scripture" that is
adequate. Let's quit trying to use neutral terms and confront the
humanists with their religious agenda with that of the King of Kings
and Lord of Lords!
Notes
1. "Pro-lifers" has a derogatory sound. However,
except for differences in concept, I use the term with utmost
respect. It is easier to use pro-lifers than to say "those who are
pro-life" repeatedly.
2. Franklin E. Payne, Biblical/Medical Ethics,
Milford, Michigan: Mott Media, 1985, pp. 182-183.
3. I give only a brief treatise of a subject that is
worthy of a lengthy section in systematic theology. The concept of
"life" is central to God's message to man.
4. I have written more extensively on this subject
elsewhere in "The Ethics of Life and Death," Making Biblical
Decisions, Escondido, California: Hosanna House, pp. 139-154.
5. Available from Still Waters Revival Books,
4710-37A Ave., Edmonton, AB Canada T6L 3T5. Phone (403) 450-3730.
Fax (403) 465-0237.
Terrell's Treatise
We Should Stick to Being Physicians!
Hilton P. Terrell, Ph.D., M.D.
An offbeat news magazine (equal time reading to
balance biases of the mainstream media) related the tale of one John
Thorpe, who wanted to build something on some property he owned, or
thought he owned. The Fish and Wildlife Service, however, prevented
him from building, because the upland site bordered a salt
marsh in which lived the salt marsh harvest mouse. The government
agency held that, when global warming melts the polar icecaps, the
ocean will rise, the mouse will have to move into what is now
upland, and Mr. Thorpe's house will be in the way of the mouse.
From the mainstream side, a recent opinion article
in JAMA (4/26/95) expressed concern over environmental
influences which are reducing the diversity of biological organisms.
This concern probably extends to salt marsh harvest mice which, I am
sorry to report, have not yet been assayed to see if they contain an
enzyme which eats cholesterol from the endothelium of arteries.
Reduced diversity, we are reasonably told, makes for increased
vulnerability of humankind as well as other species. The lamentation
in JAMA mentioned global warming and deforestation as
processes in the "possible extinction" of some species. The present
(need I add, Republican?) U.S. Congress was brought in for
criticism for its stand against the Endangered Species Act which was
said to be "declaring war on creation."
There are some incompatible presuppositions hiding
here in JAMA. Evolutionists do not hold that the process has
ended. Evolution proceeds, so the model goes, by the processes of
mutation and extinction. You cannot find fossils of the
inter-species links, of which there ought to be 7.814 bazillion,
because it all happened in biological corners and closets, according
to apologist and ad hoc specialist Stephen Jay Gould. He
calls it "punctuated equilibrium." The latest ad hoc appendages to
Darwinism include appeals to catastrophism that would have been
anathema only a few years ago. Comets plunging into the Yucatan
darkened the globe for years and extinguished the great lizards.
Reduced bio-diversity for sure, there! Congress obviously was not
watching.
JAMA's use of the word "creation" on the
other hand, evokes the anti-evolution models of creationism. If
comets, being part of the natural order, do not "war on creation"
when they darken the earth, how is it that human beings, a part of
the natural order, are warring on creation when we cut down trees
and burn fossil fuels? Someone has smuggled in a teleology here. (If
you don't know the word, look it up, or confess that you are
intellectually lazy.) Evolution and extinction know no purposes.
They just are. They know no values. Whatever is, is right. Creation,
however, howls purpose and value.
Speaking of purposes, what are the purposes of the
JAMA article? To enlist physicians in tasks for which our
training and experience fit us scarcely at all -- preserving rain
forests and icecaps? To have us stoke the political engines that
would move Congress from its present mildly reactionary state to one
which would allow more taking of property like Mr. Thorpe's? After
all, mice got rights, too. We need more congressional action, like
the one which empowered an agency to declare children's deciduous
teeth to be toxic waste. So long, tooth fairy. Drop your tooth,
child, in this biohazard container conveniently mounted on your
bedroom wall, and the waste disposal contractor will leave you some
money in the glove dispenser. (No, Rush did not write this article.
I don't even like Rush. I can beat Rush with three-fourths of
my brain tied behind by back.)
What has all this to do with family medicine? (Other
specialties are not herewith excused from the following!) One of the
reasons for family medicine is that, compared to other medical
specialties, we are supposed to know something about a wide
variety of medical matters. On only a few of those matters will we
know as much as the medical specialty that focuses on that area. We
are supposed to bring breadth of knowledge to the solution of
medical problems. The specialists bring depth.
The risk that our specialty brethren run is in
becoming too narrow. We are one of the correctives for that. There
is, however, a risk that we run -- becoming too broad. We are
supposed to take the family's social, educational, vocational, and
attitudinal situation into account. We are supposed to be cognizant
of the influences of the environment on health. We risk being
drawn into social work, job counseling, environmentalism, or other
areas in which our training and experience do not well qualify us.
Recognition of the importance of these matters in medical problems
does not constitute competence to manage them. Neither are
good intentions a substitute for competence.
What do family physicians really know about global
warming? Icecaps? The Homolanthus nutans tree in Samoa which
native healers use to treat yellow fever, according to JAMA?
Certainly physicians may be involved in environmental preservation
movements, but not because of any special knowledge. A concern about
losing medicinal agents hidden in disappearing plants may motivate
us, but it doesn't inform us. We may service our agendas
according to our personal convictions on such matters. We need to be
careful of being drawn into servicing other people's agendas without
knowing what we are doing. There are benefits and hazards both ways.
Who really wishes to see a flowering plant disappear from earth's
inventory? There are, though, likely adverse health consequences in
stripping ownership rights from people such as Mr. Thorpe. Who
speaks for those consequences? I wouldn't want to harm a marsh
mouse, but if push comes to shove, I'll side with Mr. Thorpe against
the mouse (unless his name is Mickey -- and Disney is ruining his
image). Excuse me along with the Yucatan comet.
Dear Ed,
As I started to read Robert Wells' article
(September 1995), I began to enjoy it -- until Mr. Wells posed the
question, "Is God pro-life?" I felt a little grieved in my Spirit
about that question and to be honest, the rest of the article
bothered me!
Is God pro-life? Why would anyone even ask such a
question! By God's will, we (man) were created! We are the clay, He
is the potter! God is not "pro-life," God is Life, Eternal
Life!
We are qualified to read of the Biblical accounts,
such as the Flood and other situations where many people were
destroyed, and ask if God is pro-life! God is God! God is just. God
is all knowing.
Let me defend God on the Flood first to make my
point: when the Flood came, all mankind (except Noah and his family)
were destroyed! All men, women, children, and even pregnant women
were destroyed. It was God's decision to do so. God is all knowing.
He knew if even a baby in one of those women's wombs would, if it
lived, follow His ways, or be rebellious. I believe God knew
the outcome of every life on earth, even if that life was not yet
born -- to God a day is a 1,000 years. God is just in all His
decisions.
Just because we don't see the entire picture
doesn't mean that God doesn't! Why does God allow many people in
India to starve? Or does He? Cannot all the countries of the world
get together and feed those people? Yes, it is our choice to
allow those people to starve. God allows us to choose what we do. If
you've picketed an abortion mill yet haven't sent food to
starving people, are you "pro-life?" Let God be God and judge
yourself! God allowed men to kill Jesus, but it was God
who gave Him life!
Paul Bero
Jackson, MI
Ed's Note
Mr. Bero's discomfort is an indication of the
unsettling nature of Mr. Wells' question and the broader and deeper
nature of God's being pro-life. An example of that breadth is Mr.
Bero's application to starving people. Indeed, as pro-lifers, what
are we doing about starvation in the world? (I am ignoring Indians'
own beliefs and responsibilities for the sake of a point here.)
Don't Cut
Along This Line!
"A few years ago, I needed to have surgery on my
right foot. I took a black magic marker to the hospital and
wrote on my left leg from my mid-calf down, "NO, WRONG FOOT!"
DON'T CUT ANYTHING! LOOK ON THE OTHER LEG!" On the right leg, I
wrote, "YES! THIS IS THE RIGHT ONE. THIS FOOT IS THE ONE TO
OPERATE ON.
"Some people will insist it is the surgeon's
responsibility to do things properly, but I figure it doesn't
hurt to give the person with the knife a little guidance. At the
risk of insulting the doctor, I felt a lot more confident after
I printed that road map on my legs." (Letter to "Ann Landers,"
Chicago Tribune, September 15, 1995, Section 5, p. 3)
Commentary: Frankly, I am surprised that there are
not more errors of right and left confusion during surgery. With
thousands of operations done every day and piles of sterile
coverings for patient and operating staff, any perspective of right
and left can almost vanish.
I am always looking for ways that patients and
families can assume responsibility for themselves. The practice of
"anatomically correct" labels for surgery is one more excellent one.
Of course, some might be willing to trade an arm or
a leg or a kidney for a few million. Better chances than the
lottery!
The New Age Becomes
Nursing Orthodoxy
The Sixth Edition of the Handbook of Nursing
Diagnosis (J. P. Lippincott) has gone New Age. The book contains
a new section entitled "Energy Field Disturbance" or "Therapeutic
Touch." Its definition is "the state in which a disruption of the
flow of energy surrounding a person's being results in a disharmony
of the body, mind, and/or spirit."
Commentary: Of course, these nursing "authorities"
would never consider that anointing with oil by elders, prayer,
evangelism, or other healing modality of Biblical Christianity might
be "therapeutic." And, I doubt that a practitioner of the above is
able to perceive the most severe disharmony that can exist: the
unregenerate spirit in rebellion against God.
Oh well, such is the "progress" of the healing
professions.
Your Worst
Nightmare -- More on the ADA
"Your worst fears are being realized.
There are no clear answers as to when -- and how -- employees
with mental disorders have to be accommodated under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
"And more and more employers face discrimination
charges from workers who claim their mental health requires
accommodation. Depression alone accounts for about 2 percent
of charges filed under ADA.... ADA fails to spell out what
mental disorders are protected, and a mistake could cost you a
bundle." (Business Briefing, National Institute of
Business Management, Inc., October 23, 1995, p. 1)
Commentary: Talk about bureaucracy run amuck! Under
ADA and its nebulous "mental illnesses," businesses do not have any
guidelines or recourses. They are totally at the mercy of whimsical
psychiatrists and bureaucrats. In other words, the ADA cannot define
what or how to handle workers with mental illness, but you (as a
businessman) are certainly liable to whatever charges are filed!
Again, the worst of this scenario is that many
evangelical Christians were at the forefront demanding the ADA. And,
I don't think that they will be there with a helping hand for
businesses that fail because of this law. They may even rejoice that
"dirty businesses" (who work for the filthy profit motive) got what
they deserve. I wonder how they will feel when their welfare dries
up because the well is dry from overuse (i.e., excessive taxes and
fines). I wonder if they will be there to assist and console workers
who have lost their jobs (and their health insurance!) because of
ADA lawsuits.
Fewer
Physicians Do Abortions
"Fewer doctors, especially younger ones, are willing
to perform abortions, a Kaiser Family Foundation survey showed. Most
doctors cited moral, ethical, or religious reasons for not
performing abortions. The survey also asked doctors whether they
would "prescribe" drug-induced abortions if they become available.
Eighteen percent of doctors who don't currently perform abortions
said they would be "very likely" to do so if RU-486 is approved by
the FDA." (National and International Religion Report,
October 2, 1995, p. 5)
Commentary: I see "good news" and "bad news" here.
The good news is that fewer physicians (I prefer "physician" to
"doctor") are willing to do abortions. The bad news if that (for
many) it has more to do with convenience than convictions, if they
will change their practice simply because of a simpler method.
Is this situation not unlike birth control pills for
unmarried women? Physicians who are anti-abortion quite readily and
argumentatively prescribe birth control for unmarried women --
exposing them to the severe spiritual and physical dangers of
fornication and adultery simply to keep them as patients, to prevent
the "possible" abortion that may occur later, or to identify with
some other spurious "good" medical practice.
See the lead article herein. Being "pro-life" is
having a complete, consistent code of medical ethics, not one of
convenience.
The Government Is Here to Help You!
"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has
spent $13 million trying to better protect Americans from
tainted foods and medicines imported by foreign companies - but
the new computer program doesn't work, a government report
says." The Augusta Chronicle, October 30, 1995, p. 2A)
Commentary: Let's see if I have this right. The FDA
is supposed to protect the consumer from dangerous drugs and
contaminated food. Right? They spend $13 million on a program as
part of that effort -- and it doesn't work. Do you feel safer? I
don't. Could our trust be misplaced? (After all, our coins have "In
God We Trust." At least, at one time and in one way, the government
did get it right!)
Few Nuns Have Alzheimer's Syndrome
"Nearly 700 elderly nuns are donating their
brains to medical science in hopes of furthering Alzheimer's
research.... (they) go through a set of tests every 18 months to
assess their balance, strength, mobility, mental agility, and
memory.... The brains of 94 nuns ... showed an unusually low
incidence of Alzheimer's, even though many lived into their
90s.... Researchers are exploring the thesis that intellectual
development may protect some older people from nerve-cell damage
and memory loss." (National and International Religion Report,
September 18, 1995, p. 4)
Commentary: I want to tread easily here. However, I
have long had the suspicion that a major part of Alzheimer's was
attitudinal and behavioral. The lives of many elderly involve social
isolation, mentally dull activities (e.g., TV and menial games), and
simple daily routines -- little mental stimulation there!
Accordingly, readers should remember that
Alzheimer's is a catch-all term that includes many etiologies of
organic brain disease, any or all of which could cause symptoms of
Alzheimer's that totally destroy my thesis.
Still, I will venture a little further. The Bible
says nothing about retirement, as far as the modern concept is
concerned. We need to re-examine the Biblical duties of the
elderly.
The
Eyes You Don't Own in Indiana
In Indiana, your corneas belong to the state until
you state specifically otherwise. Senate Enrolled Act 389,
passed in Indiana's legislature in 1993, allows coroners to remove
corneas from the dead without a donor card or the family's
permission. In fact, even if you state that you don't want to
be
an organ donor on your driver's license, they can still take your
corneas.
The caveat is that you must state objection of
cornea donation specifically and that the coroner is supposed to get
permission from the family (but doesn't have to). (Personal letter
from Ron Youngblood, October 6, 1995)
Commentary: A cornea is actually a nose -- the nose
of the state camel in the tent. Many physicians and others around
the country are lamenting the shortage of spare organs for donation.
The small, readily extractable, and easily hidden cornea is the
beginning and test legislation. Already laws are being considered
that your organs are available unless you state otherwise. If
they get that, organs transplant advocates won't stop there. Organ
donation will become mandatory.
When Americans allowed the taxing of their property
and their income (in violation of the Constitution) they gave away
all their property rights, including to their own bodies. When God
is not worshiped, indeed the state becomes God. It wants your
bodies, alive or dead. It claims to own you. And yet -- and
yet -- Christians along with everyone else clamor for more
government intrusion. Dear readers, this issue of limited government
is a central tenet of medical ethics. Otherwise, we will only live
and die for the state.
Steve Schlissel is a converted Jew who has one of
the most fascinating ministries today. Through Messiah's
Congregation and Urban Nations (the true UN) in Brooklyn, New York,
he interacts, preaches, teaches, and disciples people from all over
the world within the "melting pot" that is New York City.
I always read his letters with anticipation because
news of his ministry is mingled with excellent theology. Here, I
cite his some of his remarks (September 1995) about homosexuality
that reflect a major theme that I have discussed relative to the
resurrection of the Hippocratic Oath by Christians.
"Days ahead require the wisdom of serpents and
the harmlessness of doves. But know this: as debate over the
legalization of homosexual marriage heats up, only the Christian
[his emphasis] answer will suffice, and we must make the
Christian position known so that God may bless its proclamation
and use it to convert and save. There is no power in offering
a generic, "conservative" view [Ed's emphasis].
"There is no hope in arguing that thus and such
is the view of "most Americans." It is useless to talk about the
view of "people of faith" (as in all faiths). I have heard these
arguments and the homos have effective arguments for all of
them. Our argument must be, "Thus saith the Lord!" We must argue
out of Scripture or God will not honor us in battle..."
I am in need of his prescription, as is the rest of
Christendom (literally, Christ's Kingdom). I don't know when to be
"generic" and when to be Scriptural. However, as the years pass, and
I put my thoughts on paper, I am increasingly convinced that
Christians rarely use Scripture in public debate -- to the detriment
of their argument and the demise of society and law.
Do you think that the present and almost complete
banishment of Christianity from public life, schools, and government
is an accident? Tyrants have always gone after the Christians from
First century Rome to modern times because they had the truth and
were willing to die for it. As such, they were the worst enemies
of totalitarians, who viewed themselves (or at least acted) as gods.
I am not sure how to bring "Thus saith the Lord"
into public debate, but let us ponder the matter and look for
opportunities. God has not promised to honor "conservative, generic
truth," but His Word. As the young Jesus said, "Let us be about my
(our) Father's business."
(You may want to learn more about or to support
Steve Schlissel's ministry. His address is: 2662 East 24th St.,
Brooklyn, NY 11235-2610.
While this newsletter is focused on medical ethics,
it is also concerned with a complete Biblical worldview. My
proofreader, Carol Blair, writes a newsletter, The Issachar File,
which deals with a variety of subjects. Her July/August issue
reflects on her exposure to college literature currently in a
master's program with her original experience in college 20 years
ago!
She describes three viewpoints by which literature
is reviewed today: feminism, deconstruction, and Marxism. Close
behind is gay and lesbian literature -- coming soon to your college
and high school.
Vol. 9, No. 6 (61) November 1995
AIDS
Cases Are Down -- Again!
AIDS statistics have been distorted twice in the
history of the AIDS epidemic. The definition of AIDS was changed in
1987 and again in 1993. Each change brought a big increase in AIDS
cases that distorted overall numbers and projections made on past
definitions.
Now that the initial reporting of the change made in
1991 is past, AIDS numbers are declining again. There were 75,825
cases reported in adults for the 12 months ending June 30, 1995,
compared to 79,674 for the 12 months ending December 31, 1994 -- a
4.8 percent decline. (HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, Volume 5,
No. 2, p. 10 and Volume 7, No. 1, p. 8)
... And the
HIV "Pool" Is Shrinking
(Ed's Note: HIV (human immunodeficiency virus)
causes a weakening of the body's immune system to the extent that
the person contracts other infectious diseases and develops cancers
that he would not otherwise experience. The period of time from HIV
infection to these "opportunistic" diseases and cancers is usually
several years and may be ten years or more. So, statistics on HIV
(which are not required reporting in all states and thus incomplete)
and statistics on AIDS (which are required reporting and almost
complete) are kept separate. As you read, be careful to distinguish
HIV statistics from AIDS statistics.
Projecting from the total of 476,899 AIDS cases
reported through June 30, 1995, until the present, more than
one-half million cases have been reported. Since the figure of 1
million people infected with HIV was first estimated more than 4
years ago and more than 300,000 of these have now been reported to
have AIDS, the "pool" of HIV-infected people has to have been
reduced to 700,000 or less. (HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report,
Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 29-30)
Commentary: I have not seen recent estimates of the
rate of new HIV-infection or estimates of this "pool," but I doubt
that new cases are sufficient to maintain it at the previous "one
million." Thus, AIDS cases will continue to decline along with the
"pool" of HIV-infected people.
Reporting of HIV infection is required in only 25
states. Of the 10 states with the highest number of AIDS cases, only
1 (New Jersey) requires HIV reporting. Thus, there are only 67,211
reported cases of HIV in those 25 states, contrasting to the
projected "one million."
... HIV
Testing Is Late-Stage
"A 1995 study of 2,441 people with AIDS in 11 states
found that the majority were tested late in their illnesses.
Fifty-one percent were diagnosed with AIDS within a year of
receiving a positive HIV test and 36% were diagnosed within two
months of being tested. The most common reasons for seeking testing
were illness (58%), being in a known risk group (13%), having an
HIV-infected partner (8%), being offered the test at a clinic (6%),
and having the test recommended by a physician (5%)." (American
Medical News, October 16, 1995, p. 14)
Commentary: From this data, it seems that most
people with HIV infection do not know that they have it. Mostly,
they don't go for testing until they manifest some illness. Within a
year of diagnosis, more than half (51%) would likely be reported as
AIDS cases since their illness would qualify them within the
expanded definition of AIDS.
Lesbians Die
"Young" As Well
We have reported earlier that the median age of
death of homosexuals who have AIDS is 39 years, and for those who do
not die of AIDS, it is 42 years. A more complete report of this
study also reveals that the median age of death for lesbians is 44
years. They exhibit higher rates of violent death and cancer
relative to women in general. (Omega Journal of Death and Dying,
Volume 29 (1994), No. 3, pp. 249-272)
Commentary: "The wages of sin is death" includes
physical life, as well as spiritual life. Perhaps, no other group
exemplifies this relationship than homosexuals and lesbians. While
heterosexual immorality is never to be condoned and has its own
morbidity and mortality, the consequences for homosexuals and
lesbians is much greater. This data is just more evidence that God's
plan for man is comprehensively "pro-life." (See lead article, this
issue.)
HIV
Infection in College Students
"The survey was conducted in student health centers
at 10 large state universities and 25 randomly selected U.S.
colleges in 1989 and 1990. Of 20,380 blood specimens collected
during the study period, 39 tested positive for HIV, yielding a
seroprevalence of 0.19 percent; this rate is similar to a CDC survey
of college students conducted in 1988 and 1989. Only 11 (28 percent)
of the 39 HIV-infected students were aware of their infection when
their blood was taken. Seropositive persons were more likely to be
male, to be 25 years of age or older, and to attend a school of at
least 25,000." (HIV/AIDS Prevention, September 1995, p. 5)
Commentary: Note that specific numbers of
male/females were not given here -- only "more likely to be male."
In the previous study mentioned by the CDC, only two of the
HIV-positive students were female. Further, the prevalence of HIV
infection in the general population of the United is 0.40 percent,
so the prevalence in college students is only one-half that number.
Dr. Francis Collins is a Southern Baptist and
Director of the Human Genome Project, a multi-national,
multi-billion dollar effort to identify every gene in the 46
chromosomes of humans. A headline in the Chicago Tribune
reads "Congress told to protect privacy of Americans who get gene
tests." The article began:
"The government's top geneticist urged Congress
on Friday to enact a law protecting the privacy of Americans who
undergo testing for genes that predispose them to diseases.
Otherwise, they will be vulnerable to insurance and employer
discrimination, said Dr. Francis Collins.
(Chicago Tribune, September 30, 1995, Section 1, p. 10)
Do Bible-believing Christians know who God is? Dr.
Collins and many others do not seem to know. Federal and state
governments are in the process of thoroughly destroying American
health care, and he and others want more involvement? God is the One
to Whom we look for answers. If we always look to the state for
answers, then the state has become our God.
Of course, Dr. Collins, Joni Eareckson Tada, the
Christian Medical Society, the Center for Bioethics and Human
Dignity, and a host of other evangelicals and their organizations
will casually dismiss such a challenge as the delusions of fanatical
fundamentalists, if they ever recognize their problem at all.
Bible-believing Christians do indeed leave their
worship at the Sunday altar. They worship modern medicine, science,
and government far more than they worship God's mercy and
providence. Most may never recognize this idolatry while they tithe
to the care of the human body and pay a double tithe (or more) to
the state. Meanwhile, the average that Americans pay to the church
and charities is about -- three percent.
The question arises then, "Who should be responsible
for confidential tests?" The answer is simple, "The individual, his
physician, and the laboratory." If I have a genetic test done, the
results go to my physician, and he informs me. Three parties know
the results. If that knowledge becomes known to others, then it can
easily be traced to the "leaking" party. That party is then held
responsible in a court of law.
That's the ideal. But, today, insurance companies
and the government have access to your medical records because they
have a financial interest. Your medical records are now an open
book. And -- Dr. Collins et al. want the fox (government) to have
even more control over the hen house (your medical records)? I think
not.
Genetic technology is truly amazing. Chemical
designs with a virus as a carrier can locate specific sites on
chromosomes among the millions of genes that are present. Many
diseases are caused by a simple defect in one of these genes. The
hope has been to replace these defects with normal genetic sequences
and eliminate the resultant disease.
After more than 100 trials "involving patients with
a variety of disorders.... there is little or no published evidence
of the clinical efficacy of gene therapy." (The New England
Journal of Medicine, September 28, 1995, pp. 871-872. Also, see
accompanying articles in the same issue, pp. 823-838)
Commentary: I have long suspected that gene therapy
would have its problems. Why? Simply because few, if any, medical
treatments are straight-forward and effective. Should we expect gene
therapy to be exempt from such difficulties?
I strongly hope for better results. We could truly
cure some diseases, instead of merely giving palliative treatment,
which is the large majority of what physicians do.
However, these early reports are not encouraging.
Perhaps, gene therapy has been overly simplistic. While the
excitement has been about genes, they interact intricately with the
cytoplasm (non-genetic material in cells). While genes provide the
information for all the biochemicals that make up the human body,
some degree of control must come from the cytoplasm. This
non-genetic control may be diseased in itself and prevent the
desired effect of simple gene replacement.
Further, what part does the spirit have in bodily
function? While Descartes' location of the soul in the pineal gland
may be false, our spirits do affect our bodies. Could a disease have
a corresponding defect in the soul? I am speculating. Likely,
we will never have the answers to the body-soul interface. However,
we as Bible-believing Christians must challenge the notion that the
body exists without the soul. For certain, that reality has
implications for all medical practice, including gene therapy. We
ignore this relationship to our peril, as we so often note on these
pages.
Blessed be your glorious name,
Which is exalted above all blessing and praise!
You alone are the LORD;
You have made ... all things! Nehemiah 9:5-6 |
