As physicians, we will play "God" everyday; after all, implicit in our desire to prolong patients' lives and avert death is the assumption that we actually have the right to attempt to alter the balance of life and death, a right which the religious usually attribute to their deity or deities alone. Conveniently, however, the vast majority of religious groups are okay with this; alteration of life and death is allowed as long as life is prolonged and death is delayed. Similarly, the acceptance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by the religious will generally require the admission that people have the right to alter something that was created or maintained by something or someone greater than themselves; it is the same philosophical issue, even if to a far lesser degree. Because people do seem willing to forsake amorphous religious beliefs for the sake of compassionate, practical benefits, I think GMOs would eventually be accepted by the religious community once presented with sufficient evidence supporting their use and sufficient time for the natural skepticism of change to wane. Therefore, although there will likely always be outliers in the religious community who refuse to accept GMOs, I believe it is likely that they would be accepted by the vast majority.
Moreover, we will need to weigh our own personal beliefs against that of our professional ones; while they may certainly conflict at times, the general principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, utility, and the like should theoretically be present in both arenas. If, then, GMOs are demonstrated to have clear benefits (e.g., increased output, increased nutrition, decreased resource-use, etc.), we are all but duty-bound to support their use and development. After all, what better way to truly care for our patients than by ensuring that they have the resources they need to preserve their health and well-being with the respect, ease, and autonomy that we already enjoy?
