The Myth of Secular Neutrality: Unbiased Bioethics?
by Sarah J. Flashing
The media spotlight on the Terri Schiavo case
brought the world’s attention to important matters such as the use
of advance directives and appropriate legal advocacy for the
defenseless. It also made it apparent that the myth of neutrality is
not regarded as a myth at all. The myth of neutrality is the idea
that a secular point of view is free from philosophical or religious
influence and, therefore, objective. In the Terri Schiavo situation,
some sought to discredit certain views by considering not the
content of any argument put forth, but rather by attacking people on
the basis of their worldview commitments.
Herein lies the problem: neutrality is impossible.
Secularists have no claim to neutrality because everyone has a set
of presuppositions that guide their moral and ethical analyses.
Contending for any position depends upon this framework in that it
is through one’s presuppositions that facts are interpreted and
related. No one lives or operates in a vacuum where the mind is a
“blank slate” and facts are uninterpreted. Were that the case,
“brute facts” would exist independently of God and have no logical
relation to one another. Accordingly, man could not know them.1
There is no neutral ground from which to discuss
questions regarding what it means to be human. Such questions “are
inevitably normative, value-laden, metaphysical in character.”2 Yet there are entities that purport the notion that neutrality is
possible. Take for example the Human Embryo Research Panel
established by the National Institutes of Health in the mid 1990’s.
In a statement where they discuss their deliberations on the federal
funding of research on human embryos, they declare, the “Panel
weighed arguments for and against Federal funding of this research
in light of the best available information and scientific knowledge
and conducted its deliberations in terms that were independent of a
particular religious or philosophical perspective.”3 Meilaender brings clarity to the table when he asserts, “We are not
philosopher-kings who can adjudicate disputes between conflicting
views without ourselves being parties to the argument.”4 We simply cannot enter into bioethical discourse and leave our
presuppositional framework at the door. Any attempt to do so is
merely an attempt to disguise one’s own worldview and is, at best,
naïve. The answer to the question of whether bioethics can be
unbiased is simple: all bioethics are biased.
The Terri Schiavo case in Florida earlier this
year illustrates well the erroneous assumption that anyone can be
truly neutral. This was made quite evident when several people
quoted by the media attempted to discredit individuals by mocking
them because of their public Christian worldview.
On March 23, 2005, Dr. William P. Cheshire, M.D.,
filed an affidavit in Duval County, Florida, which stated that, on
the basis of his “review of the extensive medical records
documenting Terri’s care over the years,” his “personal observations
of Terri,” and his “observations of Terri’s responses” on many hours
of video tape, Dr. Cheshire believed Terri demonstrated “a number of
behaviors” that “cast a reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of
PVS.” Dr. Cheshire then proceeded to provide several pages of
elaboration on these behaviors and concluded that Terri was likely
in a minimally conscious state rather than a persistent vegetative
state. He concluded the affidavit with the statement: “Where serious
doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is
not consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively
resolved, it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable
life.”5
While its true that a worldview is going to in
some way inform a person’s conclusions, this does not necessitate
that those conclusions are in error by virtue of the fact that the
person holding them is a Christian—as non-Christians often assert.
Another neurologist easily could have come to the same conclusions
as Dr. Cheshire in that one need not be a Christian to have
compassion and concern for the most vulnerable in our society.
However, one needs the Christian perspective in order to account
properly for why the vulnerable, like Terri Schiavo, should be
treated with human dignity.
Immediately after Dr. Cheshire’s affidavit was
made public, there was a media frenzy to discredit him, not only
him, but anyone who approached the Terri Schiavo case and also
happened to be a Christian. The assumption was that if you were a
Christian, and perhaps more narrowly, a pro-life evangelical or
Roman Catholic, you simply could not be objective about the case.
The presupposition behind such a view is that pure objectivity and
the ability to be neutral is even possible. It is as if those
seeking to discredit Dr. Cheshire do not have a worldview of their
own.
The Baptist Press News (BP News) reported
that while papers like the Washington Post were reporting Cheshire’s
affiliation with CBHD, these papers were not reporting the
affiliations of other so-called experts being quoted by the media.
While the piece in the BP News sought to draw our attention to media
bias, it also made clear some of the guiding presuppositions of the
players in the ethical discussion. Citing a National Review article, BP News reported that Dr. Ronald Cranford of University of
Minnesota Medical School, a witness for Michael Schiavo, is “one of
the most outspoken advocates of the ‘right to die’ movement and of
physician assisted suicide in the U.S. today.” The writer of this
piece is also quoted as saying that Cranford “has described PVS
patients as indistinguishable from other forms of animal life. He
has said that PVS patients and others with brain impairment lack
personhood and should have no constitutional rights.” The BP News
piece concluded with the information that “Cranford is on the board
of directors for Choice in Dying, formerly known as the Euthanasia
Society of America.” How then can we consider Cranford unbiased?6
The Terri Schiavo case is an excellent example of
how secularists are convinced that neutrality and pure objectivity
are possible. It is believed that, through reason alone, there
exists the possibility to arrive at a consensus on moral dilemmas.
H. Tristram Engelhardt, philosopher and ethicist at Baylor, believes
otherwise.
Engelhardt, author of The Foundations of
Bioethics and The Foundations of Christian Bioethics,
believes that the pluralistic public square is made up of what he
terms “moral strangers,” with an “irresolvable plurality of moral
understandings” and that “each side presupposes different
fundamental moral premises as well as rules of evidence and
inference.”7 Based on these premises, no agreement will ever be found among these
varying views. Engelhardt says, because of the inadequacies of human
reason to arrive at a content-full morality in the secular context,
it is impossible for moral strangers to arrive at a content-full
agreement through rational discourse. While I believe his diagnosis
is accurate, I disagree with his prescription.
Engelhardt holds that differing moral communities
can “act with common moral authority and live peaceably within a
larger secular society, as long as they draw common authority from
agreement.”8 Further, Engelhardt maintains that, what he terms libertarian
cosmopolitanism “provides the philosophical foundation for a
procedure, for a general secular structure for the morally
authoritative collaboration of moral strangers. It constitutes the
moral point of view of moral strangers.”9
This collaboration is what he calls common
consent. In order for common consent to transpire, individuals must
grant permission to other individuals. Permission giving presupposes
an authoritative position of the permission giver. Engelhardt posits
in The Foundations of Bioethics, “The principle of
permission, which is justified in terms of the morality of mutual
respect, does not focus on freedom as a value, but on persons as the
source of general secular moral authority.”10
What secularism regards as a resolvable through
the use of reason, Engelhardt sees as irresolvable except through
consent. Still, another option exists. An option that recognizes
that the public square need not be accepted nor engaged on secular
terms.
For Christians in the public square, I advocate a
form of argumentation that is unambiguously Christian and committed
to the authority of Scripture. The role Scripture can play is not
necessarily to provide explicit content to an argument, but to be
its foundation. This form will critique secularist presuppositions
in light of the Christian worldview, showing the insufficiency of
secularism. As Bahnsen states, “He [the secularist] needs to be
answered according to his folly—demonstrating where his
philosophical principles lead—‘lest he be wise in his own eyes’
(Prov. 26:5).”11
In the public square, Christians are involved in a
number of areas such as the legislative process, the sharing of
opinions, and generally informing society. We enter into these
discussions in order to work for the common good. By joining our
arguments with a presuppositional critique of other arguments and
worldviews, we are demonstrating intellectual honesty and demanding
the same from our “moral strangers,” including those who most often
try to convince us of the possibility of neutrality.
Some might suggest that apologetics has nothing to
do with what goes on in the public square. If understood as only the
defense of the Christian faith, I can understand how one could
arrive at that conclusion. But Cornelius Van Til, the 20th Century theologian who popularized the method of presuppositional
apologetics, defines apologetics as “the vindication of the
Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of the
non-Christian philosophy of life.”12 John Frame, theologian and student of Van Til, defines
presuppositional apologetics as “the application of Scripture to
unbelief.”13 Similar to Van Til, Frame describes presuppositional apologetics as
defensive and offensive,14 asserting, “God calls his people, not only to answer the objections
of unbelievers, but also to go on the attack against falsehood.”15 Here he quotes the apostle Paul who says, “We are destroying
speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge
of God and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of
Christ.”16 It is, therefore, helpful to think of one of the functions of
apologetics as seeking to expose the foolishness of non-Christian
thinking.17
In leaving the door open for an offensive form of
apologetics, one that seeks to take every thought captive,
suddenly the public square does not seem to be an inappropriate
location for the discipline to be put into practice. I suggest that
in adopting this approach we finally can engage the public square in
a more intellectually honest manner, and ultimately with the gospel.
As we pursue truth in bioethics, we need to pursue and confront
falsehood like that of those who, during the Schiavo case, portrayed
themselves as having no bias when in fact just the opposite is the
case. As Christian bioethics contends for the dignity of human life,
it must demand intellectual honesty from all involved.
