Keeping intelligent design out of medicine

A follow up to my posting a few days ago about the stem cell debate: in the October 6th issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, an editor writes

What would it mean to take intelligent design seriously at the medical school level? Its proponents tell us that gaps in our knowledge of how living organisms evolved vitiate the theory of evolution. Might we conclude, then, that the cancer cell and its evolution are so complex that a creative designer must be the cause of cancer? But if the designer created cancer, is it against the hidden hand's will to find a cure for cancer? Is it in accord with the plan of the intelligent design to receive a treatment for cancer?

Perhaps this is relying a bit too much on a slippery slope since most proponents of creationism would not and do not refuse life-saving medical interventions (the Jehovah's Witnesses, who refuse blood transfusions, are a popular example of those who do indeed take their theological views into the hospital). However, the deeper implication is one that touches on stem cell therapy and and the increasingly blurred boundary between therapy and enhancement. God gave Barry Bonds a fabulous talent, but did he intend for him to boost that talent with steroids?

The brain, removed

I never thought I would hold a human brain in my very own hands. Last week I removed my cadaver's in gross anatomy (I am a first year medical student) and stood at my dissection table in quiet awe. It is heavy and big, compared to other organs in our bodies, and has a density and texture that reminded me of rich, moist clay you might use for pottery. (The neurosurgeon helping us with the dissection said the living brain was rather a different beast - more supple and delicate.) Holding the most incredible thing we know in the universe in the palm of your hand is an akward, uncanny honor; in the end, and devoid of life, it is just a lump of meat.

Getting around the stem cell debate

Our scientists are trying damn hard to pursue embryonic stem cell research without offending the bible thumpers. To date there are two ways of making ES cells without destroying the embryo - here's the latest - but both seem so insanely contrived that it is any wonder religious opponents find them acceptable.

At the end of the day, if you are good Catholic why would you support any kind of molecular tinkering with the human body? Certianly God created us with imperfections, a Christian will point out, but these are only moral and spiritual. Physically, we are perfect, the image of God. So then, when does "improving" the human condition through medical genetics become morally offensive by mucking around with God's beautiful and intelligent design?