The Teleological Suspension of Medicine: Fundamentally Scientific or Fundamentally Religious?
Matthew Vest, PhD(c), Lecturer in Bioethics, Center for Bioethics, Ohio State University
The relationship between science and religion in contemporary medicine is no doubt seen by some as antagonistic, but on the whole it seems more accurate to note that religion is accepted within the broader culture of contemporary scientific medicine. For many healthcare institutions, chaplaincy departments and other spiritual assessment tools and mechanisms are required for certain types of medical accreditation. Religious practices may not be given a favored role, but in as much as medicine is clinical and offers healing therapies primarily for the body, the inclusive place given to religion and spirituality may be deemed reasonable.
That is, the above relationship between science and religion is “reasonable” given the working understanding of contemporary religion that follows a propositional, theoretical, or scientific model. By “theoretical,” it is not right to say that contemporary religions are based on theories per say, abandoning all ways of living out faith and the authority of holy tradition. Rather, the point is that most contemporary religious thinking within medical spheres operates in a theoretical mode. The justification and thinking with spiritual assessment tools, patient satisfaction with spiritual care, chaplaincy, and more follows a theoretical mode where quantifiable, propositional values outweigh mystical and transcendent belief. Spiritual assessment tools—whether open spiritual histories, high-structure stage-theory models, or something in the middle—inevitably seek some normative presentation of spirituality that typically is connected logically to some other greater component of scientific healthcare. The medical system measures, for example, “end of life” hopes and fears as part of the immanent concerns with physiological stress levels, mental stability, patient satisfaction, etc.
This paper challenges the contemporary, theoretical understanding of religion by reversing the prioritization of theoretical over religious thinking. Rather than valuing religious practices according to medical values, this reversal seeks to understand medical practices in terms of authentic religious life values—which may also be seen as a turn from contemporary, theoretical religion to the thick, pre-modern religious practices and dogma in traditional communities of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. As a particular case study, this paper will approach Julian Savulescu as an ethicist who gives close attention to the teleology—and hence implicit philosophical theology—of medicine. Rather than assuming notions of the “healthy body” as the therapeutic end goal of medicine, Savulescu provocatively embraces a technological vision of medicine as a way to enhance humanity towards an open, trans-humanist future. As fictitious as Savulescu’s transhumanism may be, his philosophy of medicine is honest in its posturing of scientific medicine itself as an insufficient telos. Rather, the nature of medicine inevitably, implicitly, calls upon some end goal or vision of the good. Without such an ontological and theological framework, medical practices remain suspended in ambiguity—unable to differentiate between core medical values such as enhancement vs. therapy, and abandoning religious practices within an inevitable subservience to the immanent goals of healthcare. In short, this paper questions: what do we mean by religion? Is medicine fundamentally scientific, or fundamentally religious?
The relationship between science and religion in contemporary medicine is no doubt seen by some as antagonistic, but on the whole it seems more accurate to note that religion is accepted within the broader culture of contemporary scientific medicine. For many healthcare institutions, chaplaincy departments and other spiritual assessment tools and mechanisms are required for certain types of medical accreditation. Religious practices may not be given a favored role, but in as much as medicine is clinical and offers healing therapies primarily for the body, the inclusive place given to religion and spirituality may be deemed reasonable.
That is, the above relationship between science and religion is “reasonable” given the working understanding of contemporary religion that follows a propositional, theoretical, or scientific model. By “theoretical,” it is not right to say that contemporary religions are based on theories per say, abandoning all ways of living out faith and the authority of holy tradition. Rather, the point is that most contemporary religious thinking within medical spheres operates in a theoretical mode. The justification and thinking with spiritual assessment tools, patient satisfaction with spiritual care, chaplaincy, and more follows a theoretical mode where quantifiable, propositional values outweigh mystical and transcendent belief. Spiritual assessment tools—whether open spiritual histories, high-structure stage-theory models, or something in the middle—inevitably seek some normative presentation of spirituality that typically is connected logically to some other greater component of scientific healthcare. The medical system measures, for example, “end of life” hopes and fears as part of the immanent concerns with physiological stress levels, mental stability, patient satisfaction, etc.
This paper challenges the contemporary, theoretical understanding of religion by reversing the prioritization of theoretical over religious thinking. Rather than valuing religious practices according to medical values, this reversal seeks to understand medical practices in terms of authentic religious life values—which may also be seen as a turn from contemporary, theoretical religion to the thick, pre-modern religious practices and dogma in traditional communities of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. As a particular case study, this paper will approach Julian Savulescu as an ethicist who gives close attention to the teleology—and hence implicit philosophical theology—of medicine. Rather than assuming notions of the “healthy body” as the therapeutic end goal of medicine, Savulescu provocatively embraces a technological vision of medicine as a way to enhance humanity towards an open, trans-humanist future. As fictitious as Savulescu’s transhumanism may be, his philosophy of medicine is honest in its posturing of scientific medicine itself as an insufficient telos. Rather, the nature of medicine inevitably, implicitly, calls upon some end goal or vision of the good. Without such an ontological and theological framework, medical practices remain suspended in ambiguity—unable to differentiate between core medical values such as enhancement vs. therapy, and abandoning religious practices within an inevitable subservience to the immanent goals of healthcare. In short, this paper questions: what do we mean by religion? Is medicine fundamentally scientific, or fundamentally religious?