He’s a bioethics expert, consummate researcher, and has been involved in almost every major federal pro-life legislative initiative since 1980. He has contributed behind the scenes to all major pro-life statements from the Catholic bishops during the last quarter century.
Richard M. Doerflinger is associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, where he has worked for 29 years. Among his duties is the preparation of policy statements on abortion, euthanasia, human embryo research, and other medical-moral issues.
He has testified before Congress, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission and the National Institutes of Health. He recently received the inaugural Life Prize from the Gerard Health Foundation. Doerflinger holds a Master’s of Divinity from the University of Chicago.
He recently spoke to CitizenLink about the culture of life in America:
1. This week, Washington became the second state to legalize physician-assisted suicide. Where do you see our country heading on this issue?
Until recently, it seemed the assisted-suicide agenda had all but faded away in the United States. In 14 years, no state had followed Oregon’s lead in legalizing the practice. But in very short order, Washington voters have now approved a similar law and a state court has found a constitutional “right” to assisted suicide in Montana’s Constitution. I think the argument in favor of an absolute right of personal autonomy, including a right to choose death, is not as strong as it once was in our culture. Unfortunately, it may be getting replaced by a concern about the economic and other “burdens” of having to support sick and elderly patients, and this argument may become stronger in a time of economic crisis. Derek Humphry, founder of the (pro-euthanasia) Hemlock Society, predicted years ago that his agenda would ultimately prevail based on the argument about cost. I hope and pray he was wrong.
2. When did you first know stem-cell research would become a hot topic?
In December 1994, advocates for destructive human-embryo research who were advising the National Institutes of Health spoke openly about using the potential usefulness of embryonic stem cells as a “wedge” issue to open up the entire field of using the embryo as an object of research. When scientists first isolated human embryonic stem cells in November 1998, and this prompted huge public hype and almost immediate congressional hearings to hail the new source of miracle cures, I knew this issue would become an important battleground. The obsession with stem cells obtained by destroying embryos has little to do with any real evidence of therapeutic benefit, and a great deal to do with researchers’ ultimate goal of being able to manipulate human life at will.
3. What concerns you most about President Barack Obama's administration, as it relates to pro-life issues?
Many have commented on the strong pro-abortion records of some recent executive appointments. My deeper concern, though, is that this administration has yet to engage this fundamental issue at a level deeper than that of the political slogan. President Obama talks about “reducing abortions,” but then emphasizes contraceptive mandates and other measures that have been shown repeatedly not to reduce abortions. He seems unaware of the facts on this. His answer during the presidential campaign, that the time when a baby has a right to life is a question above his “pay grade,” was seen by many as flippant; it certainly suggested that he hasn’t given the issue very serious thought.
Many predict that on the policy level, this will be the most pro-abortion administration ever. If this is a policy commitment that is independent of any facts or reasoned argument, we are in for a difficult time.
4. What can we expect on the bioethical landscape in the years to come, and how can life advocates be involved?
The stem-cell debate has always been about more than just stem cells. Some researchers think they could be on the brink of unlocking the secrets of life, if only we could set aside any and all ethical restraints and let them follow their imaginations. Human cloning, creation of human embryos solely for research, creation of human-animal hybrids for research purposes, genetic selection and manipulation of our offspring — all these trends are well on their way and will only become worse, unless there is strong and organized opposition at the political and cultural level.
Advocates for human life need to become educated on these complex issues so they can join the public debate knowledgeably and confidently. These will be the pro-life issues of the 21st century.
5. It appears pro-life issues have really brought Catholics and evangelicals together. How can we build on that common cause?
We build on it almost every week in Washington, as pro-life groups from a Catholic and evangelical, as well as nondenominational, perspective discuss the latest threats to human life and the most effective ways to combat them. We need to see more of this practical ecumenism at every state and local level as well, knowing that our opponents are usually very united and very organized in support of their misguided goals. By working together on practical policy goals we agree on, we can build up the mutual understanding and trust that make broader cooperation possible.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Visit the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Web site.
(NOTE: Referral to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)
