Abnormal Interests

A more interesting issue arouse when the Citizens Oversight Committee tried to form an ethics working group. You guessed it; someone came up with including a clergy person. Again, the Post's report:

The longest discussion concerned the appointment of members of the Scientific and Medical Accountability Standards Working Group. They agreed they wanted scientists, economists, lawyers and ethicists.

Joan Samuelson, an advocate for patients with Parkinson's Disease, suggested they add someone with an expertise in religion to the mix. "The public looks to theologians for guidance," Samuelson said.

Many of the others nodded. But it wasn't long before the implications of the seemingly simple suggestion sunk in.

Were they looking for someone who was a specialist in Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or what? What about other sects and subsects? They wondered what kind of statement it would make if they chose someone with one belief system over another. And what about separation of church and state?

I know why the idea of having a religious professional in such groups always comes up. But that doesn't keep me from twitching. There is no reason to think that a theologian knows much about ethics. Their overall track record is atrocious and often dangerous. The basic ethical position of virtually all religions is "Authority:" the authority of the Bible, the Koran, the Pope, the Talmud when the Bible isn't clear... Some religious leaders try to smooth off the rough edges on authority but it always comes down to the same thing. The issues of medical ethics require a lot more than authority. They require serious ethical reflection. While I am more or less a Kantian when it comes to ethics, that is not the only reasonable position. However, having a religious leader on such a committee is not an ethical choice either. One has no way of knowing which religious leader of which religion to choose and there are lots of choices. Oh yes, it is also unconstitutional.