{"corpus_id":32063629,"paper_sha":"1bb2cdebb2e79fac27874572cca5ff4da454b643","doi":"10.1136/BMJ.39405.660243.59","arxiv_id":null,"pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"mag_id":2401127867,"dblp_id":null,"acl_id":null,"title":"Between the Lines: The God delusion","year":2007,"publication_date":"2007-11-24","venue":"","journal":{"name":"BMJ","pages":"1099","volume":"335"},"journal_issn":null,"journal_title":null,"publication_types":[],"pubmed_pub_types":null,"s2_fields_of_study":["Medicine","Philosophy"],"reference_count":0,"citation_count":1019,"influential_citation_count":81,"is_open_access":false,"arxiv_categories":null,"arxiv_license":null,"arxiv_journal_ref":null,"mesh_headings":null,"chemicals":null,"comments_corrections":null,"source_flags":1,"s2_open_access_pdf_url":null,"s2_open_access_landing_url":null,"s2_open_access_license":null,"s2_open_access_status":null,"pmc_open_access_pdf_url":null,"pmc_open_access_landing_url":null,"pmc_open_access_license":null,"pmc_open_access_status":null,"unpaywall_open_access_pdf_url":null,"unpaywall_open_access_landing_url":null,"unpaywall_open_access_license":null,"unpaywall_open_access_status":null,"abstract":"In his essay “Nature” (one of the Three Essays on Religion published posthumously in 1874), John Stuart Mill denies that one can decide on the morality or immorality of a course of action by describing it as natural or unnatural. Either the word “nature” means all that occurs in the universe; or it means all that happens in the universe with the exception of the deliberate actions of mankind. In neither sense can nature provide us with any moral guidance. This is obviously of interest to medical ethicists struggling with morality or otherwise of genetic engineering.\r\n\r\nThe following words appear in Mill's essay: “The consciousness that whatever man does to improve his condition is in so much a censure and a thwarting of the spontaneous order of Nature, has in all ages caused new and unprecedented attempts at improvement to be generally at first under a shade of religious suspicion . . .” \r\n\r\nIn my copy, a first edition, a previous owner (a Victorian, to judge by the handwriting) has written the word “Chloriform” (sic) in the margin opposite these words. And this, of course, brings me to Sir James Young Simpson's pamphlet, “Answer to the Religious Objections Advanced Against the Employment of Anaesthetic Agents in Midwiferey and Surgery,” which he wrote in December 1847, shortly after his discovery of chloroform anaesthesia.\r\n\r\nSimpson, a man of fairly humble background—who, showing extraordinary academic promise at an early age, was selected by his father from among his siblings for an education—was a man of wide interests, including archaeology; he loved nothing so much as a good controversy. He was a formidable pamphleteer, commanding an excellent, vigorous style in the service of relentless logic.\r\n\r\nHe argues against those who said that to give chloroform to women in labour was impiously to try to reverse God's curse on women in Genesis, “in sorrow shalt though bring forth children.” If this part of the curse were taken literally to mean physically pain, he says, why not the other part of the curse, that “in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread?” All attempts to mitigate labour, and improve the land by removing the “thorns and thistles” that it “shall bring forth to thee,” would likewise be forbidden, says Simpson. Indeed, the whole of the medical profession would be sacrilegious on the same view, because it attempted to delay man's return to dust (“dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return”) that was part of the same curse.\r\n\r\nIf God had not wanted man to relieve the pain of childbirth, says Simpson, he would not have made chloroform available to him. Besides, those who argued against chloroform on religious grounds had long attempted, unsuccessfully, to relieve the pain of childbirth, and it cannot be forbidden to do successfully what it is forbidden to do unsuccessfully.\r\n\r\nSimpson then goes on to demonstrate, by reference to Hebrew philology, that the common acceptance of the meaning of the Bible is based on a misapprehension of Hebrew words. Sorrow in the Biblical curse on women means labour, not pain. Finally, Simpson points out that the same argument from sacrilege was advanced against Jenner's vaccination, but everyone now acknowledges that it was a ridiculous argument.\r\n\r\nAltogether, it is a bravura performance on Simpson's part. The only problem is that Simpson, being an avid self promoter, had made up the religious objections himself. He was destroying a straw man: but he did it very thoroughly.\r\n\r\nIf God had not wanted man to relieve the pain of childbirth, says Simpson, he would not have made chloroform available to him","claims":[{"public_id":"cl_6fb2667309fc579cf999ca79a925a490","status":"active","text":"Mill denies that describing an action as natural or unnatural can determine its morality.","confidence":0.97,"contributors":[{"id":1,"public_id":"12632b8b5f","public_label":"Anonymous (12632b8b5f)","roles":["extraction"],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/u/12632b8b5f"}],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/claims/cl_6fb2667309fc579cf999ca79a925a490"},{"public_id":"cl_6b293f00f9cc796e105291d91f67c50d","status":"active","text":"Simpson argues that religious objections to chloroform in childbirth and surgery fail because they rest on a mistaken reading of the biblical curse and on a misinterpretation of Hebrew terms.","confidence":0.95,"contributors":[{"id":1,"public_id":"12632b8b5f","public_label":"Anonymous (12632b8b5f)","roles":["extraction"],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/u/12632b8b5f"}],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/claims/cl_6b293f00f9cc796e105291d91f67c50d"},{"public_id":"cl_64c981814080a75d721afb3e15b4262b","status":"active","text":"Simpson's defense of chloroform also turns the divine-curse argument back on itself by implying that alleviating childbirth pain and other human attempts to improve conditions cannot be inherently sacrilegious.","confidence":0.9,"contributors":[{"id":1,"public_id":"12632b8b5f","public_label":"Anonymous (12632b8b5f)","roles":["extraction"],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/u/12632b8b5f"}],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/claims/cl_64c981814080a75d721afb3e15b4262b"},{"public_id":"cl_d8212f86199bdf9d97e931c2a804eb36","status":"active","text":"The pamphlet is presented as a forceful but ultimately self-defeating polemic because the religious objections Simpson refutes were largely invented by him.","confidence":0.92,"contributors":[{"id":1,"public_id":"12632b8b5f","public_label":"Anonymous (12632b8b5f)","roles":["extraction"],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/u/12632b8b5f"}],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/claims/cl_d8212f86199bdf9d97e931c2a804eb36"}],"concepts":[{"public_id":"co_22461dcca87d645176fc33521ec11596","status":"active","name":"nature","description":"The concept of 'nature' in Mill's essay, used to test whether naturalness can ground moral judgment.","types":["philosophical concept"],"aliases":[],"contributors":[{"id":1,"public_id":"12632b8b5f","public_label":"Anonymous (12632b8b5f)","roles":["extraction"],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/u/12632b8b5f"}],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/concepts/co_22461dcca87d645176fc33521ec11596"},{"public_id":"co_2e31b9b449a180b3e237377be331dedc","status":"active","name":"chloroform anaesthesia","description":"The use of chloroform to induce insensibility and relieve pain during childbirth or surgery.","types":["medical treatment","anaesthetic agent"],"aliases":["chloroform","chloroform anaesthetic"],"contributors":[{"id":1,"public_id":"12632b8b5f","public_label":"Anonymous (12632b8b5f)","roles":["extraction"],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/u/12632b8b5f"}],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/concepts/co_2e31b9b449a180b3e237377be331dedc"},{"public_id":"co_2ed372160c9a7f7665522641551cc8a2","status":"active","name":"straw man","description":"A weakened or invented opponent argument that is easier to refute than the real position.","types":["argumentation concept"],"aliases":[],"contributors":[{"id":1,"public_id":"12632b8b5f","public_label":"Anonymous (12632b8b5f)","roles":["extraction"],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/u/12632b8b5f"}],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/concepts/co_2ed372160c9a7f7665522641551cc8a2"},{"public_id":"co_8b966889153d82b7e3918bc3e2fb5435","status":"active","name":"Sir James Young Simpson","description":"A nineteenth-century physician and pamphleteer associated with the discovery and advocacy of chloroform anaesthesia.","types":["person","physician"],"aliases":["Simpson"],"contributors":[{"id":1,"public_id":"12632b8b5f","public_label":"Anonymous (12632b8b5f)","roles":["extraction"],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/u/12632b8b5f"}],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/concepts/co_8b966889153d82b7e3918bc3e2fb5435"},{"public_id":"co_8f85205d3d518831abc145fc039febf1","status":"active","name":"childbirth pain","description":"The pain associated with labor and delivery, discussed as the symptom chloroform is meant to relieve.","types":["symptom","outcome"],"aliases":["pain of childbirth","labour pain"],"contributors":[{"id":1,"public_id":"12632b8b5f","public_label":"Anonymous (12632b8b5f)","roles":["extraction"],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/u/12632b8b5f"}],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/concepts/co_8f85205d3d518831abc145fc039febf1"},{"public_id":"co_94d92ba98bc52c059ee50010eaff7a25","status":"active","name":"Hebrew philology","description":"The study of Hebrew words and meanings used here to challenge the biblical interpretation behind the objections.","types":["discipline","linguistic analysis"],"aliases":["Hebrew words"],"contributors":[{"id":1,"public_id":"12632b8b5f","public_label":"Anonymous (12632b8b5f)","roles":["extraction"],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/u/12632b8b5f"}],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/concepts/co_94d92ba98bc52c059ee50010eaff7a25"},{"public_id":"co_9ab98e0ea3e44acf7254da55c3e42a67","status":"active","name":"religious objections","description":"Arguments that oppose chloroform use on theological grounds, especially in relation to childbirth and surgery.","types":["argument"],"aliases":["religious objections advanced against the employment of anaesthetic agents"],"contributors":[{"id":1,"public_id":"12632b8b5f","public_label":"Anonymous (12632b8b5f)","roles":["extraction"],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/u/12632b8b5f"}],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/concepts/co_9ab98e0ea3e44acf7254da55c3e42a67"},{"public_id":"co_b491f1ee07c4faad4a461102d2e20bda","status":"active","name":"morality","description":"Standards for judging actions as right or wrong, which Mill argues cannot be derived from appeals to nature.","types":["ethical concept"],"aliases":["moral guidance"],"contributors":[{"id":1,"public_id":"12632b8b5f","public_label":"Anonymous (12632b8b5f)","roles":["extraction"],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/u/12632b8b5f"}],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/concepts/co_b491f1ee07c4faad4a461102d2e20bda"},{"public_id":"co_d91ba1ae7b402a2a9cd934c39678a688","status":"active","name":"John Stuart Mill","description":"The nineteenth-century philosopher whose essay 'Nature' is discussed for its view on morality and nature.","types":["person","philosopher"],"aliases":["Mill"],"contributors":[{"id":1,"public_id":"12632b8b5f","public_label":"Anonymous (12632b8b5f)","roles":["extraction"],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/u/12632b8b5f"}],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/concepts/co_d91ba1ae7b402a2a9cd934c39678a688"},{"public_id":"co_db09f7f08bf1f30aae43e7a77f1977dc","status":"active","name":"divine curse","description":"The biblical curse in Genesis invoked in the anti-chloroform argument about women's labor and human toil.","types":["religious concept"],"aliases":["Genesis curse","God's curse"],"contributors":[{"id":1,"public_id":"12632b8b5f","public_label":"Anonymous (12632b8b5f)","roles":["extraction"],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/u/12632b8b5f"}],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/concepts/co_db09f7f08bf1f30aae43e7a77f1977dc"},{"public_id":"co_fe3e29e5000bcec5fe2f7b28b9f89291","status":"active","name":"pamphlet","description":"A short argumentative publication by Simpson defending the use of anaesthetic agents.","types":["publication"],"aliases":["Answer to the Religious Objections Advanced Against the Employment of Anaesthetic Agents in Midwiferey and Surgery"],"contributors":[{"id":1,"public_id":"12632b8b5f","public_label":"Anonymous (12632b8b5f)","roles":["extraction"],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/u/12632b8b5f"}],"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/concepts/co_fe3e29e5000bcec5fe2f7b28b9f89291"}],"external_ids":{"DOI":"10.1136/BMJ.39405.660243.59","ArXiv":null,"PubMed":null,"PubMedCentral":null,"MAG":2401127867,"DBLP":null,"ACL":null},"open_access":{"is_open_access":false,"pdf_url":null,"landing_url":"https://sah.borca.ai/papers/32063629","source":null,"pdf_url_source":null,"license":null,"reason":"pdf_url_not_indexed"},"reference_availability":{"status":"unknown","references_indexed":false,"full_text_available":false,"full_text_source":null,"count_basis":"semantic_scholar_metadata","extraction_status":"not_applicable","reason":null},"source":{"provider":"episteme2","base_corpus":"semantic_scholar_dump","freshness_mode":"unknown","basis":["semantic_scholar_metadata","postgres_metadata"],"limits":["paper metadata is based on indexed upstream scholarly datasets","claims and concepts are available only for extracted papers","absence of claims or concepts means no extracted graph data is available in this response"],"status":"available","degraded":false,"degraded_reasons":[],"diagnostics":{"status":"available","degraded":false,"degraded_reasons":[],"metadata_status":"available","graph_status":"available","abstract_status":"available"},"source_flags":1},"paper_id":636014,"paper_uid":"2e0ba9db-ee92-4b39-9fa8-36b0e868fc28","canonical_identity":{"paper_id":636014,"paper_uid":"2e0ba9db-ee92-4b39-9fa8-36b0e868fc28","identity_status":"available","lookup_basis":"semantic_scholar_external_id","compatibility_path":"corpus_id"},"url":"https://sah.borca.ai/papers/32063629"}