National Association of Evangelicals

From Christian BioWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Official Website: http://www.nae.net/

Beginning of Life

Abortion

Official Statement: from the Abortion 1973 Resolution[1].

"We reaffirm, as evangelicals united, our position that the moral issue of abortion is more than a question of the freedom of a woman to control the reproductive functions of her own body. It is rather a question of those circumstances under which a human being may be permitted to take the life of another. We believe that all life is a gift of God, so that neither the life of the unborn child nor the mother may be lightly taken. We believe that God Himself, in Scripture, has told us what our attitude should be towards the unborn. Several times it is specifically stated that He conferred divine blessing upon unborn infants. He also provided penalties for actions which result in the death of the unborn.
Therefore, we deplore in the strongest possible terms the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court which has made it legal to terminate a pregnancy for no better reason than personal convenience or sociological considerations. We reaffirm our conviction that abortion on demand for social adjustment or to solve economic problems is morally wrong. At the same time we recognize the necessity for therapeutic abortions to safeguard the health or the life of the mother, as in the case of tubular pregnancies. Other pregnancies, such as those resulting from rape or incest may require deliberate termination, but the decision should be made only after there has been medical, psychological and religious counseling of the most sensitive kind." (Abortion 1973 Resolution[2])

Official Statement: from the Abortion 2010 Resolution[3].

"All humans, male and female, are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and, therefore, have intrinsic dignity that should be respected and honored. Indeed, the breath of life in all human beings is a gift from God (Genesis 2:7) and thus inherently holy. The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) has pledged to protect the sanctity of human life and to safeguard its nature. In light of our respect for the precious gift of life, the NAE continues to speak on the sensitive subject of abortion.
Quite simply, America has an abortion problem. Over one million abortions occur in the United States every year.[4] We find this number horrific, because it is not just a number. It represents more than a million human lives deliberately terminated every year. The Bible reveals God’s calling and care for persons before they are born (Psalm 139:13), and each life lost is a unique creation made in God’s image who might have blessed our society in extraordinary ways. We declare this situation to be unconscionable and unacceptable.
The NAE is not alone in its concerns. The broader American public long has been disturbed by abortion, and this sentiment continues today. According to a September 2008 Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life publication, “most Americans (73%) believe that abortion is morally wrong in nearly all (24%) or some (49%) circumstances.”[5] We find hope for reform in this common concern.
We recognize that well-intentioned Americans have debated for many years whether and in what circumstances abortion should be legal. Americans remain passionately divided on this subject. The NAE actively, ardently and unwaveringly opposes abortion on demand. However, we do not dismiss those who advocate for legal access to abortion as unconcerned for human life or unworthy of our respect and attention. Lack of civility and charity toward our neighbor is also unacceptable (Mark 12:31).
The NAE is pleased that some longtime opponents in the debate over the legality of abortion have expressed interest in working together to dramatically reduce the incidence of abortion in the United States. Without compromising our core convictions, we seek honest conversation about ways to achieve this goal. These conversations should build on our shared concerns for human dignity, protecting children and promoting healthy families and communities.
We understand that the problem of abortion is interconnected with other challenges in our society. Given the generative nature of human sexuality, we recognize an inherent link between respect for God’s gift of sex and respect for God’s gift of life. Sex is a precious gift from God intended for a man and a woman to consummate marriage, procreate, express love and experience pleasure within an exclusive covenantal relationship. The Church is called to teach and model the blessings of sexual purity and to uphold marriage and the family, society’s fundamental building blocks.
Pregnancy is a natural result of sexual activity and integral to God’s design and command for humans to “be fruitful and increase in number” (Genesis 1:28). If God permits a pregnancy, planned or unplanned, we should understand that God is forming a new life in his image. Sex is a responsible act only in a relationship in which a couple is willing to care for any children that can come from that union. However, in stark contrast to the biblical vision, irresponsible and flippant treatment of sex abounds in our society. It is no wonder that unplanned pregnancy similarly abounds and places many parents and their children in environmentally, economically and emotionally precarious states.
We recognize the pain, fear and even anguish that sometimes accompanies an unplanned pregnancy. The parents, particularly when they are young or unmarried, are often overwhelmed by the sacrifices that would be required to care for a young life. In too many cases, fathers desert their partners and unborn children as soon as pregnancy is discovered. Abandoned pregnant mothers may feel hopeless in the face of the daunting challenges of single parenting. Sadly, many fathers and mothers in these situations each year turn away from the joys and responsibilities of parenting or the alternative of adoption, and many then bear heavy burdens stemming from those decisions for years to come.
Approximately half of all pregnancies are unplanned, and more than 40 percent of these three million unplanned pregnancies are aborted. This accounts for the vast majority of America’s abortions every year.[6] Any serious attempt to reduce the number of abortions must therefore come to terms with unplanned pregnancy, the pandemic of extramarital sex and the complex issues surrounding contraception and other family planning methods. Where couples are not willing to accept the responsibilities of parenting, they should educate themselves about ethical methods of family planning. The Church is understandably reluctant to recommend contraception for unmarried sexual partners, given that it cannot condone extramarital sex. However, it is even more tragic when unmarried individuals compound one sin by conceiving and then destroying the precious gift of life. Witness the far reaching consequences to King David’s sins of adultery and murder(2 Samuel 11).
In some cases, couples embracing pregnancy face diagnoses of potential complications for their prenatal child. Too often these diagnoses are accompanied by suggestions towards abortion. For example, prenatal diagnoses of Down syndrome result in abortion in approximately 90 percent of such situations.[7] We are deeply saddened not only by such a staggering trend but also its subtle eugenic implications. Parenting a child with physical or developmental difficulties can be a significant challenge but also a great blessing. We believe churches should strive to be communities offering extra love and support for families who conceive or adopt special needs children.
We do not wish to exalt a one-size-fits-all approach to abortion reduction. Rather, we urge church leaders, always with a mind to honor God’s gifts of life and sex and his holy institutions of marriage and family, to seek out strategies appropriate for their congregations and communities.
We are grateful for those already working in ministries supporting children and youth, pregnancy care, adoption, single parents and parents of children with special needs, poverty relief, biblically sound family planning, sexual purity and accountability, and marriage strengthening. Each of these ministries can contribute to reducing the number of abortions. We commend the NAE’s “Theology of Sex” as a publication to aid evangelicals in properly understanding and cherishing human sexuality, building strong families, respecting human dignity and celebrating the precious gift of life. Moreover, we commission the NAE Generation Forum to encourage evangelicals and society-at-large toward cooperative efforts and practical solutions that create an environment where sex is honored, life is cherished, parents are supported and the number of abortions is reduced." (Abortion 2010 Resolution[8])

Official Statement: from the Partial Birth Abortion 1997 Resolution[9].

"The National Association of Evangelicals affirms the declarations of Scripture that all human life is a sacred gift from a sovereign God. Therefore, partial-birth abortion is a great moral wrong. American Catholic Cardinals have correctly characterized this inhumane procedure as "more akin to infanticide than abortion"
Partial-birth abortion is a horrific "medical procedure" that takes the life of a child in a way scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages. Indeed, it is a practice totally unworthy of a civilized nation. With Jefferson, we tremble for our country when we reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.
The President of the United States vetoed legislation in the 104th Congress banning partial-birth abortion. He offered as a “justification” for his action that he had determined that he could not sign the legislation unless it contained an exception for cases where there might be "serious health consequences to the mother". However, as observed in a resolution of the Southern Baptist Convention, “the mother's health exception' has been completely discredited as a catch-all loophole which has been demonstrated to include any reason the mother so desires.” Moreover, in a letter to all members of Congress last year, numerous doctors stated that the partial-birth abortion procedure is never medically indicated.
We appeal to the Congress to enact legislation once more to combat what any civilized people, familiar with the grisly details of partial-birth abortion, should only consider morally wrong. Moreover, if the President again ignores the will of the people and persists in vetoing this legislation a second time, we call on every member of Congress to override that wrongful veto.
We appeal to President Clinton to support a ban on partial-birth abortion, not only the third trimester, but at any time, especially because the recent revelations of Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, plainly demonstrate that the President was intentionally misled before his veto last year.
It is time for all who love life to join together as fellow. Americans and heal this national wound, lest this moral disgrace continue unabated." (Partial Birth Abortion 1997 Resolution[10])

Science & Technology

Biotechnology

Official Statement: from the Bioethics & Stem Cell Research 2005 Resolution[11].

"Whereas developments in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and related fields, hold immense promise for medicine and the greater good of mankind and at the same time, they raise profound moral questions, since they these developments address the human physiological nature, granting a new control over our very genetic DNA make-up.
Whereas biotechnology is one of the many moral challenges we face in the twenty-first century and those who employ these new technologies may be tempted to treat human beings as commodities.
Whereas the National Association of Evangelicals declares it necessary to respond to this moral challenge by setting a clear framework addressing bioethics from an evangelical perspective within which ethical applications of these technologies can flourish for the good of mankind.
Be it resolved that the National Association of Evangelicals adopts the following guidelines as the core ethical and moral tenets regarding future research and application of biotechnology:
1. Embryos constitute human life.
2. All human beings are made in the image of God and given the breath of life by God alone.
3. Respect for human dignity is paramount in the development of biotechnologies."
"6. All bioethics research should be motivated by a desire for advancing the health of mankind and not for financial gain."
"9. Fundamental changes in human physiological nature using biotechnology, genetics, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and other means must be prohibited.
10. Government funding for research on the ethical, legal, and social issues raised by these new biotechnology developments is essential and must include vigorous oversight and dissemination." (Bioethics & Stem Cell Research 2005 Resolution[12])

Human Cloning

Official Statement: from the Bioethics & Stem Cell Research 2005 Resolution[13].

"4. Cloning human embryos, whether for research or reproductive purposes, must be prohibited." (Termination of Medical Treatment 1994 Resolution[14])

Stem Cell Research

Official Statement: from the Bioethics & Stem Cell Research 2005 Resolution[15].

"Whereas biotechnology is one of the many moral challenges we face in the twenty-first century and those who employ these new technologies may be tempted to treat human beings as commodities."
"Whereas the National Association of Evangelicals declares it necessary to respond to this moral challenge by setting a clear framework addressing bioethics from an evangelical perspective within which ethical applications of these technologies can flourish for the good of mankind.
Be it resolved that the National Association of Evangelicals adopts the following guidelines as the core ethical and moral tenets regarding future research and application of biotechnology:
1. Embryos constitute human life.
2. All human beings are made in the image of God and given the breath of life by God alone.
3. Respect for human dignity is paramount in the development of biotechnologies."
"6. All bioethics research should be motivated by a desire for advancing the health of mankind and not for financial gain.
7. Patent law must not allow for human embryos, genes, cells, and other tissues to become commodities."
"10. Government funding for research on the ethical, legal, and social issues raised by these new biotechnology developments is essential and must include vigorous oversight and dissemination." (Termination of Medical Treatment 1994 Resolution[16])

Emerging Technologies

Official Statement: from the Bioethics & Stem Cell Research 2005 Resolution[17].

"Whereas developments in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and related fields, hold immense promise for medicine and the greater good of mankind and at the same time, they raise profound moral questions, since they these developments address the human physiological nature, granting a new control over our very genetic DNA make-up."
"Whereas the National Association of Evangelicals declares it necessary to respond to this moral challenge by setting a clear framework addressing bioethics from an evangelical perspective within which ethical applications of these technologies can flourish for the good of mankind."
"9. Fundamental changes in human physiological nature using biotechnology, genetics, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and other means must be prohibited.
10. Government funding for research on the ethical, legal, and social issues raised by these new biotechnology developments is essential and must include vigorous oversight and dissemination." (Termination of Medical Treatment 1994 Resolution[18])

Ethical Use of Technology

Official Statement: from the Bioethics & Stem Cell Research 2005 Resolution[19].

"Whereas developments in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and related fields, hold immense promise for medicine and the greater good of mankind and at the same time, they raise profound moral questions, since they these developments address the human physiological nature, granting a new control over our very genetic DNA make-up."
"Whereas the National Association of Evangelicals declares it necessary to respond to this moral challenge by setting a clear framework addressing bioethics from an evangelical perspective within which ethical applications of these technologies can flourish for the good of mankind."
"9. Fundamental changes in human physiological nature using biotechnology, genetics, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and other means must be prohibited.
10. Government funding for research on the ethical, legal, and social issues raised by these new biotechnology developments is essential and must include vigorous oversight and dissemination." (Termination of Medical Treatment 1994 Resolution[20])

Genetic Ethics

Gene Therapy/Genetic Engineering

Official Statement: from the Bioethics & Stem Cell Research 2005 Resolution[21].

"Whereas developments in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and related fields, hold immense promise for medicine and the greater good of mankind and at the same time, they raise profound moral questions, since they these developments address the human physiological nature, granting a new control over our very genetic DNA make-up.
Whereas biotechnology is one of the many moral challenges we face in the twenty-first century and those who employ these new technologies may be tempted to treat human beings as commodities.
Whereas the National Association of Evangelicals declares it necessary to respond to this moral challenge by setting a clear framework addressing bioethics from an evangelical perspective within which ethical applications of these technologies can flourish for the good of mankind."
"5. Inheritable genetic modifications [germline changes] must not be allowed.
"9. Fundamental changes in human physiological nature using biotechnology, genetics, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and other means must be prohibited.
10. Government funding for research on the ethical, legal, and social issues raised by these new biotechnology developments is essential and must include vigorous oversight and dissemination." (Termination of Medical Treatment 1994 Resolution[22])

Patenting of Human Tissue/Gene Patenting

Official Statement: from the Bioethics & Stem Cell Research 2005 Resolution[23].

"Whereas developments in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and related fields, hold immense promise for medicine and the greater good of mankind and at the same time, they raise profound moral questions, since they these developments address the human physiological nature, granting a new control over our very genetic DNA make-up.
Whereas biotechnology is one of the many moral challenges we face in the twenty-first century and those who employ these new technologies may be tempted to treat human beings as commodities."
"6. All bioethics research should be motivated by a desire for advancing the health of mankind and not for financial gain.
7. Patent law must not allow for human embryos, genes, cells, and other tissues to become commodities.
8. Genetic information is private to the individual and must never be the basis for discrimination." (Termination of Medical Treatment 1994 Resolution[24])


Human Enhancement

Official Statement: from the Bioethics & Stem Cell Research 2005 Resolution[25].

"5. Inheritable genetic modifications [germline changes] must not be allowed."
"9. Fundamental changes in human physiological nature using biotechnology, genetics, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and other means must be prohibited." (Termination of Medical Treatment 1994 Resolution[26])

Experimentation on Human Embryos

Official Statement: from the Bioethics & Stem Cell Research 2005 Resolution[27].

"Whereas biotechnology is one of the many moral challenges we face in the twenty-first century and those who employ these new technologies may be tempted to treat human beings as commodities."
"1. Embryos constitute human life.
2. All human beings are made in the image of God and given the breath of life by God alone.
3. Respect for human dignity is paramount in the development of biotechnologies."
"7. Patent law must not allow for human embryos, genes, cells, and other tissues to become commodities." (Termination of Medical Treatment 1994 Resolution[28])

End of Life

Definition of Death

Official Statement: from Allowing Natural Death 2014[29].

"The NAE affirms the Uniform Determination of Death Act (1980), which defines death as either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem." (Allowing Natural Death 2014[30])

Withholding and Withdrawing Treatment

Official Statement: from the Termination of Medical Treatment 1994 Resolution[31].

"Human beings are made in the image of God and are, therefore, of inestimable worth. God has given people the highest dignity of all creation. Such human dignity prohibits euthanasia, that is, actively causing a person's death.
In the past 30 years, medical technology has developed systems that have enabled physicians to more effectively care for their patients and save lives that would otherwise be lost. However, this technology has also resulted in the possibility of prolonging the dying process beyond its normal course. This often causes great suffering, not only for the patient, but also for the family, friends and caregivers.
Such technology also raises moral questions. For example, is it moral to withdraw a life-support system which is believed to be an inappropriate extension of the dying process?
The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) believes that in cases where patients are terminally ill, death appears imminent and treatment offers no medical hope for a cure, it is morally appropriate to request the withdrawal of life-support systems, allowing natural death to occur. In such cases, every effort should be made to keep the patient free of pain and suffering, with emotional and spiritual support being provided until the patient dies. When a person's cerebral cortex dies, is it moral for the family or medical staff to withdraw life-support systems?
The National Association of Evangelicals believes that in cases where extensive brain injury has occurred and there is clear medical indication that the patient has suffered brain death (permanent unconscious state), no medical treatment can reverse the process. (Brain death is not the equivalent of a coma. A patient might awaken from a coma, but not from brain death.) Removal of any extraordinary life-support system at this time is morally appropriate and allows the dying process to proceed. Under such circumstances, appropriate action is best taken where there is guidance from a signed "living will" or a durable power of attorney for health care. Where there is no "living will" or durable power of attorney for health care, the decision to withdraw life support should be made by the family and/or closest friends in consultation with a member of the clergy, when available, and the medical staff.
NAE acknowledges that the withdrawal of life-support systems' is an emotional and difficult issue. However, we believe that medical treatment that serves only to prolong the dying process has little value. It is better that the dying process be allowed to continue and the patient permitted to die. This is especially true of those who know Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. For as the Apostle Paul said: 'To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord' (2 Cor. 5:8)." (Bioethics & Stem Cell Research 2005 Resolution[32])

Official Statement: from Allowing Natural Death 2014[33].

"The NAE believes that in cases where patients are terminally ill, death appears imminent and treatment offers no medical hope for recovery, it is morally appropriate to request the withholding or withdrawal of life-support systems, allowing natural death to occur. In such cases, every effort should be made to keep the patient free of pain and suffering, with emotional and spiritual support being provided until the patient dies.
Appropriate action for allowing natural death is best taken where there is guidance from a signed health care directive (also known as a living will) and/or designated health care agent (also known as a durable power of attorney). Where there is no health care directive or agent, the decision to withhold or withdraw life support should be made by the dying patient’s family, legal guardian, or closest friends in consultation with the medical professionals and, when available, a member of the clergy.
The NAE affirms the Uniform Determination of Death Act (1980), which defines death as either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.1 The withholding or withdrawal of extraordinary life-support systems to allow natural death at this time is not only morally appropriate, but compelling."(Allowing Natural Death 2014[34])

Physician-Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia

Official Statement: from the Physician Assisted Suicide 1997 Resolution[35].

"Physician-assisted suicide is one of the profound ethical issues confronting America today. With moral relativism directing a quality of life ethic, physician-assisted suicide is being advocated as a "right." And it is even being suggested that the lives of some people are not worth living, and accordingly they should be encouraged, for the sake of themselves, family, or society, to end their lives.
The primary legal issue is whether the so-called "right to die" should be considered a liberty interest protected under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment; subsidiary legal arguments supporting physician-assisted suicide revolve around alleviating severe pain and exercising personal autonomy. But the underlying moral issue is far more profound. This matter of life and death involves our relationship with one another on the human level, and the relationship of each of us with God.
We believe that life is a gift from God, and that human life has absolute-not relative-value. Death is a significant transition that we all face. The physical and emotional suffering that may precede death can be very grievous, but it may also spiritually enrich us, and afford a last opportunity for reconciliation with mends, family, and God. While we firmly believe in mercy and compassion, that belief does not give anyone license to play God. We believe there is a profound moral distinction between allowing a person to die, on the one hand; and killing on the other (Deut. 5:17). We affirm the ethic "always to care, never to kill."
We pray earnestly that the Supreme Court will not attempt to interpret the Constitution as giving a right to physician-assisted suicide. We also pray that the Court will not leave this matter to the States, which would mean each State would be free to pass legislation permitting doctors to end the lives of their patients under certain circumstances. As evangelicals, we deny that there are any circumstances which justify euthanasia, with or without consent. Therefore, the National Association of Evangelicals. (NAE); expresses its firm opposition to State legislation which would legalize physician- assisted suicide. And NAE will support federal legislation to ensure that federal tax dollars will never be used to pay for or promote physician-assisted suicide.
We recognize the pressing need to alleviate the severe pain which may precede death. Medical experts say that ninety-nine percent of such pain can be adequately managed, yet twenty-five percent of those with pain do not benefit from medical treatment which would satisfactorily alleviate the pain. We appeal to the medical profession to do all in its power to close the gap between the knowledge of how to cope with pain therapeutically and the application of that knowledge to anyone needlessly suffering pain." (Physician Assisted Suicide 1997 Resolution[36])

Official Statements: from Allowing Natural Death 2014[37].

" While we firmly believe in mercy, compassion, and allowing natural death, we also believe there is a profound moral distinction between allowing a person to die, on the one hand, and killing on the other. As evangelicals, we deny that there are any circumstances that justify euthanasia; that is, intentionally ending a life through medical intervention. One should be wary of the many euphemisms for assisted suicide such as “physician-assisted death,” “aid in dying,” “death with dignity,” and the like.
Instead of supporting legislation allowing physician assisted suicide, we as evangelicals should focus our energies on improving care for the dying and ensuring access to high-quality palliative or hospice care to alleviate needless suffering. We should further advocate within our churches for responsible advance care planning. It has proven to be much less morally distressing to family members when they are clear on their loved ones’ wishes for end-of-life care, and are spiritually validated for honoring that person’s desires." (Allowing Natural Death 2014[38])

Issues of Human Dignity & Discrimination

Official Statement: from the Bioethics & Stem Cell Research 2005 Resolution[39].

"1. Embryos constitute human life.
2. All human beings are made in the image of God and given the breath of life by God alone.
3. Respect for human dignity is paramount in the development of biotechnologies."
"8. Genetic information is private to the individual and must never be the basis for discrimination." (Bioethics & Stem Cell Research 2005 Resolution[40])

Notes

  1. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/59-abortion-1973
  2. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/59-abortion-1973
  3. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/446-abortion-2010
  4. Jones, Rachel K. et al. “Abortion in the United States: Incidence and Access to Services, 2005.” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4000608.pdf. Vol. 40 (1), March 2008.
  5. Smith, Gregory and Allison Pond. “Slight but Steady Majority Favors Keeping Abortion Legal; Most Also Favor Restrictions.” Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/959/slight-but-steady-majority-favors-keeping-abortion-legal September 16, 2008.
  6. “Briefly… Unplanned Pregnancy in the United States.” The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/briefly-unplanned-in-the-united-states.pdf. May 2008.
  7. Mansfield et al. “Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review.” PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10521836. September 1999.
  8. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/446-abortion-2010
  9. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/267-partial-birth-abortion-1997
  10. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/267-partial-birth-abortion-1997
  11. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/90-bioethics-a-stem-cell-research-2005
  12. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/90-bioethics-a-stem-cell-research-2005
  13. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/90-bioethics-a-stem-cell-research-2005
  14. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/338-termination-of-medical-treatment-1994-
  15. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/90-bioethics-a-stem-cell-research-2005
  16. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/338-termination-of-medical-treatment-1994-
  17. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/90-bioethics-a-stem-cell-research-2005
  18. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/338-termination-of-medical-treatment-1994-
  19. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/90-bioethics-a-stem-cell-research-2005
  20. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/338-termination-of-medical-treatment-1994-
  21. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/90-bioethics-a-stem-cell-research-2005
  22. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/338-termination-of-medical-treatment-1994-
  23. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/90-bioethics-a-stem-cell-research-2005
  24. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/338-termination-of-medical-treatment-1994-
  25. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/90-bioethics-a-stem-cell-research-2005
  26. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/338-termination-of-medical-treatment-1994-
  27. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/90-bioethics-a-stem-cell-research-2005
  28. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/338-termination-of-medical-treatment-1994-
  29. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/1201-allowing-natural-death-2014
  30. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/1201-allowing-natural-death-2014
  31. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/338-termination-of-medical-treatment-1994-
  32. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/90-bioethics-a-stem-cell-research-2005
  33. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/1201-allowing-natural-death-2014
  34. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/1201-allowing-natural-death-2014
  35. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/273-physician-assisted-suicide-1997
  36. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/273-physician-assisted-suicide-1997
  37. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/1201-allowing-natural-death-2014
  38. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/1201-allowing-natural-death-2014
  39. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/90-bioethics-a-stem-cell-research-2005
  40. http://www.nae.net/government-relations/policy-resolutions/90-bioethics-a-stem-cell-research-2005
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Christian BioWiki
Tools