The Ethics of Medical Homicide and MutilationO'Malley, Austin
Religion
The Ethics of Medical Homicide and Mutilation
O'Malley, Austin
Medical ethics
We know the successive steps in the growth of the embryo from the
time of fertilization to the end of gestation, but how this vital
process is effected is not so evident. What we are certain of is
that there is a vital principle of some kind from the beginning,
and this is the matter of real importance in the present discussion.
The old moralists held that this principle in the human being is
at first vegetative; after a while that vegetative vital principle
is expelled by a sensitive principle; and finally this sensitive
soul is expelled by the rational vital principle, or human soul.
St. Thomas[40] says: "Some tell us the vital acts that appear in
the embyro are not from its soul, but from the soul of the mother,
or from the primitive force in the semen. Both these statements are
false. Vital operations, as sensation, nutrition, growth, cannot come
from an extrinsic principle; therefore it must be admitted that a
soul preëxisted in the embryo, nutritive at first, then sensitive,
and finally intellectual." After showing that an intellectual soul
cannot be evolved from lower forms, he concludes: "Therefore we say
that since the generation of one thing is always the corruption of
another, in man as in other animals, when a more perfect form comes
in this supposes the corruption of any precedent form; so, however,
that the sequent form has all perfection that was in the destroyed
forms, and something in addition: and thus through many generations
and corruptions the final substantial form is attained in man and
other animals. This is apparent to the senses in animals generated
from putrefaction. Therefore the intellectual soul is created by God
at the end of human generation, and this soul is both sensitive and
nutritive, all precedent forms having been destroyed."
[40] I, q. 118, a. 2, ad 2.
There is no such thing as the generation of any animal or other
living being from putrefaction; but that is irrelevant. St. Thomas's
argument proves conclusively that _if_ man has first a merely
vegetative soul, and secondly a merely sensitive soul, which includes
the power of the vegetative soul, and thirdly an intellectual soul,
which does the work of all three, that this final intellectual
soul is not an evolution of the first two, but a new form that
replaces these after they have served their purpose and have been
annihilated. It does not even attempt to prove that man really has
first a merely vegetative soul, and secondly a sensitive, and lastly
an intellectual soul; it supposes all this. It starts out with the
erroneous Aristotelian theory and takes it for granted. The reason
for this statement is that the rational substantial form requires
disposed matter to work upon, and the Thomists suppose (again
erroneously) that in the human embryo during the period immediately
after conception there is not enough matter to be a receptacle for
the rational soul.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account