Saint Mary’s University

School of Health Sciences

Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya

Compilation of
Bioethical Issues
In Partial Fulfillment of the Course Requirements in
Bioethics

Submitted to;
Miss Beverly Olarte, RN
Instructor

Submitted by;
Realyn L. Bu-ucan
BSN-3B
 1. HOMOSEXUALITY

Introduction
Sexual interest in and attraction to members of one's own sex. Female
homosexuality is frequently referred to as lesbianism; the word gay is often used as an
alternative for both “homosexual” and “lesbian,” though it may refer specifically to male
homosexuality. At different times and in different cultures, homosexual behaviour has
variously been encouraged, approved of, tolerated, punished, and banned.
Homosexuality was not uncommon in ancient Greece and Rome, particularly between
adult and adolescent males. Jewish, Christian, and Muslim cultures have generally
viewed it as sinful, although many religious leaders have said it is the act, and not the
inclination, that their faiths proscribe.
Homosexuality, a term created by 19th cent. theorists to describe a sexual and
emotional interest in members of one's own sex. Today a person is often said to have a
homosexual or a heterosexual orientation, a description intended to defuse some of the
long-standing sentiment among many Westerners that homosexuality is immoral or
pathological. Homosexual practices are not afforded any special moral or psychological
significance in many other cultures. A survey of 190 societies around the world (1951)
reported that homosexual practices were considered acceptable behavior in
approximately 70% of them.
The description of homosexuality as an orientation also suggests, as some
contemporary theorists have argued, that the boundaries between "homosexual" and
"heterosexual" are not necessarily rigid. Some studies have indicated that most
individuals have some erotic interest in both sexes, whether overt or not. The open
expression of interest in both sexes is known as bisexuality. Transsexuals are
distinguished from homosexuals by the feeling that they are really members of the
opposite sex. Male and female homosexuals are now commonly known as gays and
lesbians, respectively.

Critique

Psychiatric theories of homosexuality have included the following: that

homosexuality is a regression to the earliest (oral) stage of development; that most
families of homosexuals are characterized by an overprotective mother and an absent
father; or that homosexuals fear engulfment by a dominant mother in the pre-Oedipal
phase. Some authorities have suggested that homosexuality may be an expression of
nonsexual problems, such as fear of adult responsibility, or may be triggered by various
experiences, such as having sexual relationships with members of one's own sex at an
early age that prove to be very satisfying. Arguments regarding the roots of lesbianism
include disappointing heterosexual love experience, a father who displays distaste for
men who express interest in his daughter, and memories of abusive relationships with
men.
Personal Reaction

On my own perception being homosexual is not bad as long as you dont undergo
transexual operation, because for me changing something on the natural body structure of
human for the purpose of beautification alone is immoral. Now a days homosexuals like
gays and lesbians are growing in number maybe because it is in their genes or because of
their environment, and we can observe that hre in our school. Some people degrades
homosexuals some say they are immoral because they do not accept what they really are.
For me being moral does not depend on what we wear, what we say, or what how we apear
to others, it is on how we treat others or how we deal with them. As long as those
homosexuals do not do anything that can degrade or hurt others. Homosexuals should not
be judged to be immorals, its not a sin to be true and to be what they want to be.

2. STEMCELL TECHNOLOGY

Introduction
According to national intitutes of health, “a stem cell is that has the ability to
divide nor self replicate for indefinite periods-often troughtout the life of the organism.
Under the right conditions, or given the right signals,stem cells can give rise or
differentiate to the ‘many cell types that make up the organism, that is,stem cells have
the potential to develope into a mature nerve cells.”

Based on records, american scientists have started conducting experiments with

human embryonic stem cells since 1998. It was Dr.james Thomson of the university of
Wisconsin who made the first succesful experiment in developing a technique in
isolating and growing the cells into humaan heart cells. Another scientist of note is John
Gearhart of John Hopkins University who succeeded in growing nerve cells from stem
cells. But because of several strong objections of this scientific upheaval, then President
george Bush called for a halt in funding of this activity sometime in 2001.

Critique
The drive of determined scientist to harness the potencies of stem cells to cure
illness cannot be stopped by the strong mandates of the church. Inasmuch as
spiritualists, religious, theologians, including conservative moralist are one in reproving
the harvest of pluripotent stem cells from embryos, these scientist now gain more than
enough spectrum of craetivity.

The pro-lifers and conservatives protestants go passionately along with the

catholic church in this campaign to respect the sanctity and and dignity of human life
starting from its embryonic stage up until death. This means trhat even this embryos are
considered surplus, yet, they have the potency to develop into fetuses.
 As has presented, heath care providers must be sure enough not to tolerateor
approve of procedures that entail the kiliing of innocent pre-implan tation embryos
brought about by experiments on human stem cells. Thew health care providers can
actively do this by reporting to authorities, like local church leaders and other
dependable persons who have shown dedication and interest in defending the sanctity
of the human life. Ion addition, the haelth care providers must decline from giving
assistance, or any form or aid, to those who are engaged in doing the same in the
hospital where he/she works. This move will coldly alarm those concern that what they
are doing is not favored by others, especially those faithfuls of the catholic faith including
our brothers and sisters in the christian faith.

Personal Reaction
If harvesting pluripotent stemcells from surplus embryos is not morally
acceptable, then using skin cells and reprograming them to become stemcells that are
useful for curing illness, including, infertility, among others, clearly slips away from the
contours of moral restrictions. Consequently, the vatican gives an approval to the
growing of stemcells from skin cells. What the church upholds resolves around the
principle that life must not be prolonged or safeguarded in expense of another life. Since
embryos are, to the catholic church, already human beings/persons, then the act of
taking thepluripotent stemcells from embryo is equivalent to murder. The catolic church
is nit concerned about technical processes. It reacts only if a process threatens human
dignity.

For me personaly I agree with the concern of the catholic church that stem cell
technology is immoral since it intervin with natural process of life, it tresspasses the
humans free will to its own because it destroys or kill onother life for the sake of the
other. This act is not far different from murder . so, even though it is considered
legitimate, for me its still immoral and unacceptable.

3. TRANSEXUALISM

Introduction

Transsexualism is when an individual identifies with a gender that is different

from their biological sex. A medical diagnosis can be made if a person experiences
discomfort as a result of a desire to be a member of the opposite sex, or if a person
experiences impaired functioning or distress as a result of that gender identification.
Transsexualism is stigmatized in many parts of the world but has become more widely
known in Western culture in the mid to late 20th century, concurrently with the sexual
revolution and the development of sex reassignment surgery. It remains controversial,
however. Discrimination and negative attitudes towards transsexualism often
accompany certain religious beliefs or cultural values. There are cultures that have no
 difficulty integrating people who change gender roles, often holding them with high
regard, such as the traditional role for 'two-spirit' people found among certain native
American tribes.

Critique
The Mutilation of the Body is Wrong. The Bible views damage to the body as
bad and deliberate mutilation as an insult of great magnitude. Paul teaches that the body
is the temple of the Holy Spirit and should be protected, 1 Cor. 6:12-20. The extreme
hormonal manipulation and surgical mutilations involved in transsexual operations are
not justifiable unless the health of the homosexual were at stake; and it is not. The
psychological well being of the individual is as specious an argument here as it is in the
defense of abortion upon demand for the physical well being of the mother.

Transsexuality is living a lie, a foolish fantasy. Neither biblical exegesis nor

research science gives credibility to the transsexual's insistence that he or she is the
opposite sex caught in an opposite sex body. The transsexual thoughts, desires, feelings
amount to nothing more than an elaborate, expensive, moral-mental delusion. That a lie
can be so addictive should not surprise the Christian ethicist. Romans 1 and 6:12-18
clearly teach the addictive nature and power of sin. Eph. 4:17-19,22 teach that the
deceitful desires which lead to a greedy lust for more impurity have a progressive
quality. Not to call this sin "sin", especially when it is within yourself, is to be caught in
the web of self-deception. Medical science has helped raise this delusion to new heights.
Now surgery renders a body outwardly closer to this moral-mental delusion. Yet, the
genetic witness remains! If transvestism is abhorrent to God, then a radical surgical
"dressing up" is far worse. If the lesser sin of transvestism is an abomination, then
transsexual operations must be super abomination.

Personal Reaction
Here in transexuality/ transexualism, i consider it immoral because in this act
humans specifically the homosexuals who undergo transexual degrading human dignity
and at the same time disrespecting the sanctity of life.For me those kind of people are
selfish, they love their body to much to the poin that they will change the blessings that
God the creator have given them. They don’t conside the laws that they may violate and
the effects of the procedure that they will under go. So for me it is highly immoral, being
homosexual is moral but changing thier sex organ is a different thing.

4. PREMARITAL SEX
Introduction
Premarital sex' (also called Fornication) is sexual intercourse engaged in by
persons who are unmarried. It is generally used in reference to individuals who are
presumed not yet of marriageable age, or between adults who will presumably marry
 eventually, but who are engaging in sexual activity prior to marriage. It is considered a
serious sin in fundamentalist Christianity and Islam. In many Asian cultures, premarital
sex is banned to prevent unwanted pregnancy in women. The term is not generally
applied to a couple which is in a committed long-term relationship such as cohabitation.

Critique
The Bible refers to premarital sex as fornication. That's a word we don't hear
much these days, so what does it mean? Fornication is sexual intercourse between
people who are not married to each other. The only distinction the Bible makes between
premarital sex and adultery is that adultery involves married persons while fornication
involves those who are unmarried. Premarital sex is just as much of a sin as adultery
and all other forms of sexual immorality. They all involve having sexual relations with
someone you are not married to.

The Bible explains, "…The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the
Lord, and the Lord for the body" (1 Corinthians 6:13). Verse 18 of this chapter goes on to
say, "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but
he who sins sexually sins against his own body." Galatians 5:19 speaks the same, "The
acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity…" Ephesians 5:3 says it
most plainly, "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of
any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people."
From these verses, we see that the Bible promotes complete and total abstinence from
premarital sex.

In discussing premarital sex, we often focus on the "recreation" aspect of it. Yes,
sex is pleasurable. God, our Creator, designed it that way. It may be hard to think of God
creating sex, but He did! In God's plan, sex was designed for married couples to enjoy
the pleasure and excitement of sexual relations. The Bible talks about this in Hebrews
13:4, "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will
judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." God created sex to be fun, exciting,
and pleasurable. At the same time, though, it is clear in the Bible that God restricts
sexual activity to married couples.

Why is this? Yes, sex is pleasurable, but in God's view, the primary purpose of
sex is not recreation, but rather re-creation. In other words, sex is for reproduction. God
does not limit sex to married couples to rob pleasure from those who are unmarried.
Rather, God commands against premarital sex in order to protect unmarried people from
unwanted pregnancies, from children born to parents who do not want them, and to
protect children from parents who are not prepared for them. Imagine, for a moment, a
world without premarital sex. There would be no sexually-transmitted diseases, there
would be no un-wed mothers, there would be no unwanted pregnancies, there would be
no abortions, etc. According to the Bible, abstinence is God's only policy when it comes
 to premarital sex. Abstinence saves lives, protects babies, gives sexual relations the
proper value, and most importantly abstinence honors God.

Personal Reaction
Premarital sex has no moral grounds, it is against God, and it is unsafe physically
and emotionally. Although sex is pleasurable, it is designed by God to be enjoyed by two
married people.

Morality is a factor for many people when deciding whether or not to have premarital
sex. After all, the messages we receive from most TV shows and movies these days
tells us "everyone is doing it." In light of today's permissive attitude, our peers may think
we're weird to even question it.

But maybe there is something inside us, like a voice in our head, that is making us
uncertain about whether or not sex before marriage is a right or wrong action. Many
people refer to this voice as their conscience. How can we know if our "conscience" is
right? People all around the world look to the Bible as a moral or religious book, so let's
see what it says about premarital sex. Premarital sex maybe pleasurable but it si
immoral you maybe a teen ager or young adult sex before marriage is immoral. Why not
wait? Isn’ it nice to go to the altar being virgin and pure.

5. GENETIC ENGINEERING
Introduction
Gentic engineering means direct intervention in the genetic make up of a living
being. Genetic engineering involves the taking of genes from the normal location in one
organism and either transfering them else where or putting them back into there original
source in different combinations. The idea of genetic enginering stared as early as 1966,
when the augustinian monk Gregor Mendel discovred the laws of heredity. At teh turn of
the century, Mendel studies made significant contribution to the discovery of human
genes. Gentic engineering means direct intervention in the genetic make up of a living
being

Some individuals have argued that crossing species boundaries is unnatural,

immoral, and in violation of God’s laws. This argument presumes that species
boundaries are fixed and readily delineated. However, a recent issue of the American
Journal of Bioethics reflects that the notion of species boundaries is a hotly debated
topic. Some bioethicists have pointed out there are a variety of species concepts:
biological, morphological, ecological, typological, evolutionary, phylogenetic, to name a
few. All of these definitions of what a species is reflect changing theories and the varying
purposes for which different species are used by individuals.
Critique
Several bioethicists have called for a ban on species-altering technology that
would be enforced by an international tribunal. Part of the rationale for a ban is the
concern that such technology could be used to create a slave race, that is, a race of
subhumans that would be exploited. In April 1998, scientists Jeremy Rifkin and Stuart
Newman, who are both opposed to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), applied for
a patent for a “humanzee,” part human and part chimpanzee, to fuel debate and to draw
attention to potential abuses on this issue. The United States Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO) denied the patent on the grounds that it violated the Thirteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits slavery. The decision has
been appealed, but the appeal has not yet reached a court, and it may never do so. The
appeal may be dismissed on other technical grounds.

Although the USPTO has permitted the extensive patenting of bioengineered life
forms and human DNA, the question that has been raised by Newman and Rifkin’s
application is one that will not be resolved easily: What constitutes a human being? A
genetic definition is not very helpful, given the variability of gene sequences between
individuals. A species definition is controversial, as mentioned earlier. If we look to
characteristics for a definition, there are many characteristics that humans share with
primates and other animals. If we create a being that has the ability to speak and
perhaps even reason but looks like a dog or a chimp, should that being be given all the
rights and protection of a human being? Some bioethicists argue that the definition of
“human being” should be more expansive and protective, rather than more restrictive.
Others argue that definitions that are more expansive could be denigrating to humanity’s
status and create a financial disincentive to patenting creations that could be of use to
humanity. The question of whether or not the definition should be more expansive or
more restrictive will have to be considered as courts, legislatures, and institutions
address laws regarding genetic discrimination.

Personal Reaction
Basing on what we are learning genetic engineering is a great help in
preservation of life, one example is the repair of abdominal and neural tube defects while
the fetus is still inside the mothers womb. The function of genetic engineering here is
they prevent the occurence of the defect the child may carry as burden as he/she
grows.This act may violate the natural what is important is the can save and preserve
life. This advocates not only human life preservation but also human dignity. So, for me
genetic engineering is moral.