A young couple in your church wants to get married and have a family.

However,
they are worried because there is a history of Huntingtons chorea in the mans
family. On the basis of at least ONE Scripture passage and maing use of
!osgroves "ule of Non#scientific Scope, how would you, as their pastor, advise
them$
In order to put this question in context, knowledge of Huntingtons chorea (HD) is
necessary. Huntingtons chorea is a progressive, always fatal, neurological disorder
that strikes in iddle age leading to ental and otor deterioration. !he ost
characteristic initial physical syptos are "erky, rando, and uncontrolla#le
oveents called chorea. It is untreata#le #ut there are treatents availa#le to
alleviate soe of the syptos e.g. the chorea. $ife expectancy following the initial
syptos is usually up to %& years. 'lthough the pathology of the disease isnt itself
fatal, coplications resulting fro the syptos result ainly in death fro either
pneuonia or heart disease. (any with HD suffer depression and #ecoe frustrated
and aggressive and can often try to take their own lives although it isnt certain to
what extent suicidal thoughts are influenced #y psychiatric syptos. Deentia is a
noral progression.
)
'#out *+)&, of sufferers develop it at an early age, at which the
syptos progress ore rapidly.
%

It can #e diagnosed presyptoatically or prenatally using reco#inant D-'
techniques.
.
!he disease is (endelian doinant and so any carrier of the gene will
always develop the disease. !his also eans that if the carrier of the disease has
children with a non+carrier there is a one in two chance that their children will have
the disease also, while having children with another carrier will always result in
children with HD. 'lthough soeone with Huntingtons will always develop the
disease and HD is always fatal, the person can have a fulfilled life until their iddle
age #efore the onset of syptos. !his late onset therefore does not effect
reproduction. !he test for Huntingtons is siple and readily availa#le #ut only has
a#out a *, uptake #y those considered at risk. !his can #e due to the fact that there is
no cure and therefore people would rather not live with the knowledge.
/
Direct appeal to 0cripture regarding this issue is difficult due to the 1i#le having
nothing to say on genetic diseases or screening or its iplications for 2hristian
couples considering arriage. 2osgrove descri#es this as the hereneutical rule of
non+scientific scope when appealing to scripture in oral de#ate. !he rule states that3
scientific (or epirical) knowledge stands outside the scope of 0cripture.
*
In its strong
for it excludes all epirical clais even those assued in 0criptures oral clais.
!he weak for holds that only those atters incidental to faith and practise stand
outside the scope of scripture.
4
!he weak for is prefera#le5 the ain issue with the
weak for according to 2osgrove is the cosology of the 1i#le #eing incopati#le
with the view of odern science. I, however, would contest this. 'lthough the strong
for solves this pro#le it also calls into question historical facts asserted #y the
)
6nline3 http377www.hda.org.uk7hda7fact+sheets.php, 8cited )9
th
(ay %&)&:
%
6nline3 http377www.nhs.uk72onditions7Huntingtons+disease7;ages7Introduction.aspx, 8cited )9
th
(ay
%&)&:
.
!' 0hannon, Bioethics, <0'3 ;aulist ;ress, )==., .4>
/
6nline3 http377www.hda.org.uk7hda7fact+sheets.php, 8cited )9
th
(ay %&)&:
*
2H 2osgrove, Appealing to Scripture in Moral Debate, ?rand @apids3 A. 1. Berdans ;u#lishing
2o., %&&), )./
4
I#id., )%9
1i#le, particularly the historical fact of a pu#lic Cesus. !his poses any ore
pro#les than the weak for. !herefore we cannot use 0cripture to directly give us
guidance in this atter, #ut as the weak for states, we can look to 0cripture to give
us guidance in faith and practise.
<nless the uncertainty was having a psychologically detriental effect on hiself, his
partner or haring their relationship y advice to the couple fro the outset would #e
to avoid screening for HD as it is untreata#le and there is no real #enefit fro
knowing if one has HD or not. It could #e pointed out that such a course is the nor.
If the couple intiated that if there was a positive result fro screening then they
would desist fro having a faily (adoption is not an option for those with HD) then
I would consider this a reasona#le course of action and advise to go ahead in this
instance also. If he decides not to #e screened, whether he has HD or not will only #e
known in later life and he and his future wife ay as well carry on with their plans for
arriage and a faily. !he question for the couple is then one of when do they tell
their children, if they have any, of the reality that they have a chance of having HD.
!his then leads to the sae quandary that the an now has of whether to #e tested or
not, #ut for the child. !his is prefera#le, as going this route leaves the decision with
the child as to whether they want to #e screened. 'ny children of the couple, whether
they decided to #e screened or not, if they saw their father developing the syptos
in later life would theselves know that there would #e a one in two chance of the
#eing affected also.
!he entire ethical issue for e hinges on whether the an decides to go for a genetic
screen in order to ascertain whether he has HD or not. !his in itself is not a oral or
ethical dilea #ut could #ecoe one depending on what they decide to do with this
inforation. !his inforation ay have a #earing in regard to their decision to arry
or not and in particular if they decide to have children. !here is a general arguent
against screening, that it is deterinistic and reductionist in nature
>
. !his leads to
huan #eings #eing seen as solely or predoinately in ters of their genoe, or a
certain genetic disease. !o restore the context and therefore to avoid reductionis, a
genetic counsellor, would norally explore the social, psychological and edical
context for the individuals concerned. !hey are trained to gain inforation fro the
faily setting and are in a good position to interpret the results to the individuals and
if necessary the wider faily.
9
Dor 2hristians this genetic counselling should #e done
with reference to 0cripture and in the context of a counity of #elievers.
Bven if HD positive after screening, I certainly dont think that it should prevent the
couple getting arried or having children, the couple theselves ay have a different
view however. I would certainly counsel that the choices to get arried and have
children are not oral choices. ?od has given us a freedo, "ust as 'da and Bve
had in the ?arden of Bden to choose certain things within given #oundaries. In
?enesis %3)4+)> ?ods first directive declares the extent of 'das freedo of
choice, Efro any tree of the garden you ay eat freely. 's ?arry Driesen states, E!he
pattern of personal freedo and responsi#ility within revealed liits was part of the
2reators purpose fro the very #eginning.
=
Driesens contention is that ?od has a
oral will5 an ai for how we #ehave and think. ?ods oral will irrors his nature.
>
2 Deane+Druond, Brave New World?, $ondon3 !F! 2lark, %&&., )44
9
CD Gilner et al, Do the Ends Justif the !enes?, 2arlisle3 ;aternoster ;ress, )==>, 9=
=
? Driesen, Decision Ma"ing and the Will of !od, 0isters(6regon)3 (ultnoah ;u#lishers, %&&/, )/)
?od calls us to reflect who he is, his counica#le attri#utes. !hat is a ission to
function always within his oral will. 's 2hristians we are equipped and called upon
to work within ?ods structure of o#edience H ?ods oral will. !he nature of this
oral will is contained in the Decalogue, and the 0eron on the (ount, and in fact,
throughout scripture, as in narrative for we hear how ?od acts and reacts in
situations.
)&
It is our duty to choose #y asking for his guidance and the wisest choice,
there are no Ewrong choices within this fraework of his oral will, "ust a Ewisest
one.
If the couple still wanted to get arried, the knowledge of knowing whether he has
HD or not could #e epowering, in that it would allow the to plan for later life and
#e taken into consideration. It on the other hand as already stated can lead to the
#eing deterined #y the disease and serve as a liiting factor in future plans. !his
would have to #e weighed up #y the couple. !he anxiety of not knowing either way
could also prevent the an and his partner fro having piece of ind. 's there is no
cure, piece of ind and an a#ility to plan for the future with the knowledge they have
is the only #enefit fro knowing for theselves. !his, however changes entirely if
they decide to have children.
!he crux of the issue for e H if the an decides to get screened H is what the couple
do with the inforation if they decide to have children. Aill the couple decide to do
prenatal screening for HD if the woan gets pregnantI !he only prescription for a
positive result would #e a terination and this I would advise strongly against. In y
opinion having a prenatal screen is with the only option to terinate is fundaentally
wrong. It suggests a conditional coitent to ones un#orn child. 's ?il#ert
(eilaender states, E2hristians could do the world a considera#le favour and could
#ear su#stantial witness to the eaning of ?ods own love for the world if they would
siply say no to routinised prenatal screening H there#y saying to their children and,
#y iplication to all others3 JIts good you existK.
))
's I have stated I would strongly advise not to have a prenatal screen as the only
prescription would #e to a#ort as there is no cure. !his is the ethical issue at stake
here. !o dee the life of the child unnecessary or not worth having #ecause it has HD
is unaccepta#le, particularly as a person can have a fulfilling life #efore the onset of
the disease and the syptos can #e anaged even upon its onset. It also #egs the
question of what value the an hiself puts on his own life, if he has HD. Dinally,
even if the couple would not terinate upon the knowledge that their future un#orn
child has HD, the inforation of whether the child has HD or not, as I have already
stated, should #e for the child to o#tain not the parents.
6n the issue of whether a#ortion is ethical, there is again the issue of 0cripture #eing
silent on this issue. 0et in the context that we are to love our neigh#our, and Cesus
extension of who our neigh#our is to #eing anyone in need of help, which includes the
least, the poor and the vulnera#le, three 0cripture verses that have #een used in
recognising that there is a neigh#our present to care for are Cereiah )3* , ;sal ).=
and Co# .)3)*. However none of these verses are a#out huan e#ryology and none
address a tie as to when a neigh#our is present.
)%
I think therefore @ichard Hays
)&
I#id., ))>+))=
))
? (eilaender, Bioethics, A #ri$er for %hristians, 2arlisle3 ;aternoster ;ress, )==>, *4
)%
C2 ;eterson, !enetic &urning #oints, A. 1. Berdans ;u#lishing 2o., %&&), ))*, ))4
approach is far ore useful as it doesnt concern the tiing of personhood H Ewhen a
neigh#our is present. He sates that the 1i#le, although silent on a#ortion, never sees
pregnancy as a pro#le, it portrays a world that sees a#ortion not as ioral #ut
unthinka#le and unintelligi#le.
).
He argues that the 1i#lical and therefore our response
to ?ods gift of continuing to #less his creation with life is to re"oice and #e thankful.
EAhenever new life #egins to develop in a pregnancy, the creative power of ?od is at
work, and Cesus 2hrist, who is the original agent of creation, has already died for the
redeption of the incipient life in utero.
)/
?ods continuing creative acts through
Cesus in creation (Cohn )3.+*) are not ours to destroy. Ae have no sovereignty over
huan life as ?ods creatures. E's ?ods creatures we are stewards who #ear life in
trust. !o terinate a pregnancy is not only to coit an act of violence #ut also to
assue responsi#ility for destroying a work of ?od. Ahether we accord personhood
to the foetus or not, he or she is a anifestation of new life that has coe fro ?od.
)*
2ontinuing he quotes the para#le of the ?ood 0aaritan ($uke )&3%*+.>), when we
ask, JIs the foetus a personIK we are asking the sae self liiting, self "ustifying
question the lawyer did when he asked, JAho is y neigh#ourIK !o define the un#orn
child as a non+person is to liit the scope of our oral concern, whereas Cesus in the
para#le calls on us to widen our scope #y showing ercy and actively intervening on
#ehalf of the helpless.
)4
!herefore the reaction to any pregnancy should #e one of "oy
and thankfulness. Ae should not #e screening in order to put "udgeents and
valuations on ?ods creation and in the context of the para#le of the ?ood 0aaritan
if the child is soehow disa#led or has a disease our proper response should #e one of
increased care, concern, love and ercy. !his sae arguent can #e used to dissuade
the couple fro pursuing ILD treatents in order to ensure a child without HD.
%ibliography
).
@1 Hays, &he Moral 'ision of the New &esta$ent, Bdin#urgh3 !F! 2lark $td, )==4, //=
)/
I#id., /*&
)*
I#id., /*&
)4
I#id., /*)
2osgrove 2H, Appealing to Scripture in Moral Debate, ?rand @apids3 A. 1.
Berdans ;u#lishing 2o.
Deane+Druond 2, Brave New World?, $ondon3 !F! 2lark
Driesen ?, Decision Ma"ing and the Will of !od, 0isters(6regon)3 (ultnoah
;u#lishers, %&&/
Hays @1, &he Moral 'ision of the New &esta$ent, Bdin#urgh3 !F! 2lark $td, )==4
Gilner CD et al, Do the Ends Justif the !enes?, 2arlisle3 ;aternoster ;ress, )==>
(eilaender ?, Bioethics, A #ri$er for %hristians, 2arlisle3 ;aternoster ;ress, )==>
6nline3 http377www.hda.org.uk7hda7fact+sheets.php, 8cited )9
th
(ay %&)&:
6nline3 http377www.nhs.uk72onditions7Huntingtons+disease7;ages7Introduction.aspx,
8cited )9
th
(ay %&)&:
;eterson C2, !enetic &urning #oints, A. 1. Berdans ;u#lishing 2o., %&&)
0hannon !', Bioethics, <0'3 ;aulist ;ress, )==.
&he (ol Bible, -ew @evised 0tandard Lersion, 6xford3 6xford <niversity ;ress,
%&&.