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?