THE DOMINO EFFECT
Consultants in preparing “The Domino Effect” — Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D. and Stephanie Hopping
Most issues in medical ethics require a sound
understanding of “human personhood.” While
the issue of personhood itself is a philosophical
question and cannot be determined empirically,
it is possible to determine with empirical and
scientific accuracy when the material aspect of a
human being begins to exist.
Scientifically, for over 100 years, it has been documented empirically that, in human sexual reproduction, the material aspect of a human being
begins to exist when the sperm makes first contact with the oocyte at the beginning of the process
of fertilization. In human asexual reproduction, a
human being begins to exist when the DNA in a
cell and its other cell constituents are “appropriately reorganized,” i.e., are “reorganized” within
the cell in such a way that the cell becomes a new
human organism—a new human being.
Philosophically, a human person is defined properly as a human being who possesses a rational
soul, and that rational soul must always include all
three powers of the soul simultaneously—i.e., the
sensitive, vegetative and rational powers of the
soul cannot be separated. No power of the soul can
exist alone, and no whole soul can exist alone
without the human body. There is no “soul/soul”
split and no “soul/body” split. Therefore, there is
no delay between when a human being and when
a human person begin to exist. The human being
and the human person refer to the same being and
must always exist simultaneously.
Since we can know empirically when the material
aspect of a human being begins to exist, we can
therefore reason back to when that human person
begins to exist. Thus, the human person must
begin to exist immediately when the human being
begins to exist.
When discussing medical ethics questions that involve when a human being begins to exist, it is
crucial that the starting point of our inquiry is empirically based, i.e., based on the accurate scientific facts of human embryology. The need for
scientific accuracy becomes particularly clear
when addressing the legal protection of the right
to life of all human beings. However, there are
some —including some Catholics—who do not
understand the need for accurate language.
And yet Catholics should understand this need
more than anyone else, for the following reason:
To make a scientific error at the beginning, in determining when a human being begins to exist,
will automatically cause an error in determining
philosophically when a human person begins to
exist—which, in turn, will destroy our understanding of the foundation of the natural law and
the moral law. And that will ultimately bring to
an end the moral authority of the Catholic Church
and her teachings on the value and dignity of the
human person.
Don’t believe it? Consider this:
If the scientific definition of a “human being”
and when he/she begins to exist is scientifically false, then the philosophical definition of a
“human person” and when he/she begins to exist
is automatically false and therefore invalid. This
is especially a problem when false scientific
“facts” are used as false empirical starting points
for the purpose of falsely claiming that there is a
delay or “split” between the human being and the
human person.
1
Erroneous definitions of a human person can be
(and already have been) applied to virtually every
bioethical question. Instead of understanding that
there is only one human soul that possesses three
different powers—the vegetative, sensitive and
rational powers—many bioethicists claim that
there are three human souls— the vegetative, sensitive and rational souls— and that they are added
to the human body one at a time. That is, they
claim that first the human body possesses the vegetative soul, then later the sensitive soul is added,
and even later the rational soul is added. It is the
rational soul, they claim, that confers personhood
on that human being.
So, in the view of these bioethicists, before the rational soul is present, certain actions are ethically
justified because there is no person there—e.g.,
abortion, the use of abortifacients, infanticide, destructive human embryo and fetal research, human
cloning, human genetic engineering, etc.
They also apply those erroneous bioethical concepts of the soul to the end of life. Thus, they
claim, first the rational soul leaves the body (and
thus personhood is lost), then the sensitive soul
leaves the body, and finally there is nothing left
there but a human vegetative soul—the very basis
of their claim that there is a “vegetative state.”
This erroneous belief allows them to justify withholding/ withdrawing food, hydration and oxygen; withholding /withdrawing medical care and
other forms of euthanasia; physician-assisted suicide; erroneous definitions of death; illicit organ
transplantation, etc.
If the philosophical definition of a human person and when he/she begins to exist is automatically false and therefore invalid, then the
definition of “human nature” is also automatically
false and therefore invalid. This will necessarily
have a deleterious effect not just on medical
ethics, but also on related fields such as philosophy, theology, law, social theory, etc., since human
nature is synonymous with human personhood.
2
If the definition of human nature is automatically false and therefore invalid, then the definition of the “natural law” is automatically false
and therefore invalid.
The Catechism (section 1959) also explains the
moral law’s relationship to the natural law: “The
natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can
build the structure of moral rules to guide his
choices. It also provides the indispensable moral
foundation for building the human community.”
If the definition of the moral law is automatically false and therefore invalid, then the
Catholic Church’s teachings based on the moral
law are automatically false and therefore invalid.
5
Among the Church’s moral teachings is its prohibition of all forms of murder, at all stages of
life: “From the first moment of his existence, a
human being must be recognized as having the
rights of a person—among which is the inviolable
right of every innocent being to life” (CCC, section 2270, emphasis added).
3
6
The natural law is a philosophical concept derived through the use of reason alone. It is based
on an empirically derived concept of human nature— i.e., what we observe is common among
all human persons as human persons. All human
persons possess the same kind of human nature.
Among the many things common to their human
natures is when and how they begin to exist.
“To the Church belongs the right always and
everywhere to announce moral principles … and
to make judgments on any human affairs to the
extent that they are required by the fundamental
rights of the human person or the salvation of
souls” (CCC, section 2032).
According to the Catechism of the Catholic
Church (section 1954), “The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every
man, because it is human reason ordaining him to
do good and forbidding him to sin … [T]his command of human reason … [is] the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and
our freedom must be submitted.”
Section 1956 explains that the natural law “expresses the dignity of the person and determines
the basis for his fundamental rights and duties.”
If the definition of the natural law is automatically false and therefore invalid, then the
definition of “moral law” in Catholic theology is
also automatically false and therefore invalid.
The moral law is grounded in the natural law, but
perfected through divine revelation and the
Church’s magisterium (teaching authority).
4
The Catechism (section 1950) tells us, “The
moral law is the work of divine Wisdom…. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that
lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the
ways of evil which turn him away from God.”
If the Church’s moral teachings are automatically false and therefore invalid, then the
Church’s moral authority is automatically false
and therefore invalid.
The Catholic Church has always done more to
protect human beings from harm than any other
institution. But such protection gets in the way
of evil agendas. Thus, how to overcome the positive and life-affirming influence of the most
powerful institution in the world? Destroy it, one
level at a time.
Do you now see how all the levels fall, one after
the other—like dominoes—when you start with
a false definition of a human being and when
he/she begins to exist?
For a more detailed explanation of the numerous and farreaching ramifications of using of scientifically inaccurate
definitions and language, see Dr. Irving’s recent article
“Embryology, Human” (which addresses the accurate and
inaccurate science, the philosophy, the bioethics and Church
teachings, with extensive bibliography), published in the New
Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., Supplement 2009, (Detroit:
Gayle), pp. 287-312, at http://www.gale.cengage.com/NCE/;
See also the same article, “Human Embryology and Church
Teachings,” accessible on LifeIssues.net a http://www.life
issues.net/writers/irv/em/em_132embryologychurch1.html.
Dr. Irving is a professor of the history of philosophy
and medical ethics and former career-appointed bench
research biochemist/biologist for the National Institutes of
Health and National Cancer Institute. She earned an M.A.
and Ph.D. in philosophy from Georgetown University in
Washington, D.C.
P.O. Box 1350, Stafford, VA 22555 • 540-659-4171 • [email protected] • www.all.org