Case Study on Moral Status
Based on “Case Study: Fetal Abnormality” and the required topic study materials, write a 750-1,000-word reflection that answers the following questions:What is the Christian view of the nature of human persons, and which theory of moral status is it compatible with? How is this related to the intrinsic human value and dignity?Which theory or theories are being used by Jessica, Marco, Maria, and Dr. Wilson to determine the moral status of the fetus? What from the case study specifically leads you to believe that they hold the theory you selected?How does the theory determine or influence each of their recommendations for action?What theory do you agree with? Why? How would that theory determine or influence the recommendation for action?Remember to support your responses with the topic study materials.While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.This youtube video might be helpful in answering the questionhttps://youtu.be/smuhAjyRbw0Use the file that I uploaded to answer the question.This reading material might be helpful in answering the question as it is part of the instructions to utilize the study materials.19The Image of God, Bioethics,and Persons with ProfoundIntellectual DisabilitiesDevanStahlMichigan State UniversityJohnF. KilnerTrinity International UniversityAbstractAll people are created in the image of God, which gives every human being adignity that can never be lost or diminished. This article develops a biblicallysound understanding of what it means to be in God’s image. Next, it exploreshow important such an understanding is for people with disabilities. Finally,it traces out a number of implications of that understanding for people withprofound intellectual disability.Keywords:agency, destiny, dignity, image of God, intellectual disability,justice, relationalityDevan Stahl, Ph.D.(St. Louis University),M.Div.(Vanderbilt Divinity School) is Assistant Professor ofClinical Ethics at the Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Michigan State University.She chairs the Bioethics and Christian Theology Affinity Group of the American Society for Bioethicsand Humanities and has published on genetics and disability. [email protected]John F. Kilner, Ph.D.andA.M. (Harvard University),M.Div.(Gordon-Conwell Theological Semi-nary) is the Forman Chair of Theology and Ethics, Professor of Bioethics & Contemporary Culture, andDirector of Bioethics Programs at Trinity International University. His 20+ books include the recentaward-winningDignity and Destiny: Humanity in the Image of God(Eerdmans, 2015).19© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.20© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual DisabilitiesFrom The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017The biblical affirmation that all people are created in God’s image has longbeen a liberating force in the world, as documented inDignity and DestinyandWhy People Matter(Kilner 2015, 2017).1It has inspired people to respectand protect the dignity of every human being. The creation of humanity inGod’s image, rightly understood, makes a huge difference for people withprofound intellectual disabilities (PID)2in particular. It endows them with adignity that demands humanity’s attention and best efforts in support. It re-quires of others—who are also created in God’s image—that they reflect suchdivine attributes as love and justice in their individual and societal responseto the needs of those with such disabilities. If this is the case regarding themost readily-disparaged people with profound disabilities, then people withdisabilities of all sorts stand to benefit as well. The problem is that misun-derstandings related to the image of God have too frequently neutralizedits liberating power and even fostered oppression. Identifying and guardingagainst such misunderstandings must first take place if humanity’s creationin God’s image is to foster humanity’s flourishing, to God’s glory.The common, basic misconception here is that being in God’s imageis about how people are (actually) “like God” and “unlike animals.” Thisview understands being in God’s image in terms of attributes that peoplehave now, most commonly people’s ability to reason, rule over (manage)creation, be righteous, or be in relationship. In this view, sin can damagesuch attributes and thus damage God’s image. Accordingly, people vary inthe extent to which they have these attributes—and are in God’s image. Formany, that means how much people warrant respect and protection as thosein God’s image varies from person to person. The door to devastation is openas soon as people begin to define being in God’s image in terms of currentlyhaving God’s attributes. People who are lowest on the reason, righteousness,1.The present essay draws upon some of the material presented in Kilner 2017, which is a chap-ter-length summary of parts of the fuller account in Kilner 2015—the fuller account providingsubstantially more documentation and illustration than space here permits. Material from Kilner2017 used by permission of Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group.2.The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and the American Associa-tion on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) agree that “[i]ntellectual disability isa disability characterized by significant limitations both inintellectual functioning(reasoning,learning, problem solving) and inadaptive behavior, which covers a range of everyday social andpractical skills” (AAIDD 2017). DSM-5 classifies the severity levels of intellectual disability, alsoknown as intellectual developmental disorder, as mild, moderate, severe and profound, based onadaptive functioning conceptual, social and practical domains (APA 2013, 318.2 F73). Generally,persons with profound intellectual disabilities have an IQ score of 20 or below as well as pooradaptive functioning, such as extreme difficulty with language development, social skills andperforming daily tasks.21© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual DisabilitiesFrom The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017rulership, relationship, or similar scale are deemed least like God and leastworthy of respect and protection. This way of thinking has put people withdisabilities in great jeopardy, particularly people with PID.The problem here is not that a biblical idea has proven to be destructive,but that an unbiblical idea masquerading as a biblical idea has proven tobe destructive. This unbiblical idea is at odds with what the Bible’s authorsmean by being created in God’s image and how they employ this concept inlife situations. Accordingly, this article will first develop a biblically soundunderstanding of what it means to be in God’s image. Next, it will explorehow important such an understanding is for people with PID. Finally, it willtrace out a number of implications of that understanding for people withsuch disabilities.What It Means to Be in God’s ImageWhen the Bible talks about something being an “image,” that means it has aconnectionwith something else in a way that may also involve areflectionof it. Being the image “of God,” in particular, means having a special con-nection with God as well as being a substantial reflection of God. Having aspecial connection is significant, because mistreating the image means oneis mistreating the original. Being a substantial reflection is significant, sincethat means the image displays attributes (capacities, traits, abilities, etc.) ofthe original to the extent that it is able. The idea that being an image sig-nifies having a specialconnectionis evident, for example, in Daniel 3:1-7,which reports the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar erecting a large imagein the province of Babylonia. Kings in the ancient Near East would periodi-cally erect an image to establish their presence as rulers where they were notphysically present (Clines 1968; Middleton 2005, 104-7).The other element often present in an image is the way that it providesareflectionof certain attributes of the original. In Old Testament times,images often displayed something about a king. In Daniel 3, the great heightand gold surface of the image reflected the king’s grandeur and wealth. Whenthe New Testament refers to Christ as God’s image, both connection andreflection are in view. In Colossians 1:15, for instance, Paul straightforwardlyaffirms that Christ “is the image of the invisible God.”3Christ’s special con-nection with God is so close here as to constitute oneness. Moreover, Jesus isa substantial reflection of God—someone who can be seen, in contrast with3.Unless indicated otherwise, all quotations of the Bible are from the New Revised Standard Version.22© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual DisabilitiesFrom The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017the “invisible God” (Kelsey 2009, 966). The text surrounding 2 Corinthians4:4 similarly communicates that Christ’s image-of-God status involves con-nection with, and reflection of, God.Being vs. Being in God’s ImageWhereas Christ “is” God’s image, the Bible states people are “in” or “accord-ing to” God’s image. The insertion of a preposition indicates people stand insome relationship with God’s image. The image-related passages in Genesis(1:26; 1:27; 5:1; 9:6) consistently insert a preposition between people and theimage. Image-related passages in the New Testament directly or indirectlyreferring to Genesis (e.g., James 3:9; Col. 3:10) also insert a preposition.It’s not plausible that in each of these passages the author is simplysaying that peopleareGod’s image, as if there were no prepositions there,and no need to add them.4In fact, prepositions such as “in” or “accordingto” make quite a difference. Saying that someoneis inthe water is quite dif-ferent from saying that someoneisthe water. Saying that a violinis accordingtoa paper blueprint is quite different from saying that the violinisa paperblueprint.The Bible’s authors use prepositions to distinguish the rest of humanityfrom Christ. With Christ not overtly in view as a reference point in the OldTestament, the recognition there would simply have been that people are notyet God’s image but are created “according to”5the standard of who God is(in order to reflect God’s attributes to God’s glory).6In the New Testamentit becomes clearer that Christ as God’s image is the standard to which peopleneed to conform. James 3:9 is particularly significant on this point since itconveys a New Testament author’s summary of how the Genesis idea shouldbe understood.7The Impact of SinFailing to take seriously the distinction between Christ being God’s imageand humanity beinginGod’s image has contributed to overlooking a secondimportant distinction—that sin has damaged people, not damaged God’simage. If people were God’s image, then by damaging people, sin would4.For further explanation, see Hughes (1989, 21).5.The standardHebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testamentby Ludwig Koehler and WalterBaumgartner (2001, 104) specifies that “according to” is the best rendering of both prepositions,beandke, in image-of-God passages in Genesis 1 and 5.6.On the importance of this distinction see McDonough (2009, 91).7.On the harmony of 1 Cor. 11:7 with this understanding, see Kilner (2015, ch. 3) and Hughes (1989, 22).23© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual DisabilitiesFrom The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017plausibly damage God’s image. However, if people are created in (i.e., accord-ing to the standard of) God’s image, there is no damage done to the standardjust because people are later damaged.There is ample discussion and documentation in the Bible regardingthe destructive impact of sin on people. Yet, at the same time, there is everyindication people remain “in God’s image”—that no harm has been doneto this status or to the image on which it is based (see Gen. 5:1; 9:6). Peopleretain a special connection with God (though their relationship with Godis badly damaged), and God still intends for people to reflect likenesses toGod (though in actuality they largely fail to do so). The image of God is thestandard of who people are created to be—embodied in the person of Christ—and that standard is not diminished in any way because of sin. Similarly, insanctification it is people who are being renewed. God’s unchanging imageis the standard for that renewal (see Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18: Col. 3:10).What Exactly Is in God’s Image?People, then, are created in (according to) God’s image, in a way unaffectedby their fallenness. “People” (the “adam” of Genesis 1:27) refers not only toa single man named Adam but also to humanity as a whole. Contemporaryreaders can easily miss this point if they are located in societies like theUnited States that emphasize individuals, personal freedom, and autonomy.Connecting God’s image both to humankind as a whole and to each of thehumans who constitute that “kind” of creation guards against a destructiveover-emphasis on individualsorcollectives.Equally important, being in God’s image has to do with people as entirebeings (whether humanity as a whole or its component members are in view).There is no suggestion that being in God’s image is constituted by particular“attributes” people have or once had (i.e., abilities, traits, capacities, or otherthings that people are, do, etc.). Select attributes (even if God-like) are notwhat are in God’s image—persons as a whole are.As we will see in the following sections, people with disabilities are espe-cially at risk of being demeaned and oppressed when particular attributesrather than persons are considered to be in God’s image. The (generallyunspoken) logic is that since attributes like reason, sensory abilities, andstrength are what make people in the likeness of God and worthy of protec-tion, those deficient in such attributes are not as valuable as others. A similarlogic is at work concerning one’s degree of wealth, skin color, etc.8Biblical8.Regarding this logic, see Cortez (2010, 282-83).24© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual DisabilitiesFrom The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017affirmations that all people are created in the image of God provide a ringingdenunciation of basing people’s significance on their particular attributes.As Martin Luther King, Jr. (2000, 88) has observed, “there are no gradationsin the image of God.”Image and LikenessBeing “in God’s image” is actually an abbreviated way of referring to thebiblical idea of being “in God’s image and likeness.” Because two terms areinvolved here, some people have mistakenly thought they refer to two differ-ent ideas. However, there is ample biblical and external evidence to confirmthere is a single idea here that falls within the range of meaning of each term.Either term alone is sufficient to refer to this idea.9Nevertheless, that ideadoes have two aspects, related to connection and reflection.First, some sort of specialconnectionbetween God and people is in viewhere, as previously explained. However, an image may or may not have any-thing to do with being like (i.e., sharing the traits or other attributes of) theoriginal. Including “likeness” with “image” communicates the kind of im-age in view here somehow has to do with likeness to the original. It ensuresreflectionas well as connection are a part of the concept. The reflectioncannot be referring to people’s actual reflection of God’s attributes today,however, because that is damaged by sin and varies in degree from person toperson. Rather, the focus here is on God’sintention—who God wanted peopleto be at creation and still wants them to be today. Being created in the imageand likeness of God—or in the image of God, for short—is thus aboutspecialconnectionandintended reflection. People have a special connection withGod and God intends them to reflect God’s own attributes to the extent thatthey are able. The tremendous significance of human beings is completelysecure, rooted in God’s unwavering intentions rather than in variable currenthuman capacities.Being in God’s image is not unrelated to the actual capacities, relation-ships, and functions that people have—but having those things is what nor-mally flows from being in God’s image, it is not what defines it. People wholack those things are not any less “in God’s image” than anyone else, becauseof what it means to be “in” (i.e., “according to”) God’s image. It means thatGod’s image (revealed to be Christ in the New Testament) provides the stan-dard for their existence and their growth. To whatever extent they fall short9.See Kilner (2015, 124-28).25© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual DisabilitiesFrom The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017of fulfilling that standard, God intends more for them and offers them themeans now and eternally to become more.Why Being in God’s Image MattersThe implications this understanding of God’s image has for how best toview and treat people are extensive. Every person matters precisely becauseeach has a special significance that comes from being in God’s image. Thisis not the dignity that varies according to circumstances, but the dignitythat necessarily accompanies being human. Since God’s image has a cor-porate dimension to it and is not just something true of particular peopleby themselves, humanity’s existence in God’s image entails that everyonehas this special significance. There is a basic equality among members ofthe human community. This does not mean that people should considereveryone to be equal or identical in every respect; rather, it suggests “thatthey deal with each person as uniquely sacred and ignore all claims to specialsanctity” (Niebuhr 1996, 155). As ethicist Hans Reinders observes, human-ity’s creation in God’s image signifies “in the loving eyes of God… there areno marginal cases of being ‘human’” (Reinders 2006, 124). People who aresocially marginalized need not define themselves by their circumstances orthe demeaning viewpoint of those who would oppress them.Such dignity is the foundation for the often-misunderstood conceptof human rights. Tying rights closely to a clear sense of the dignity of allpeople is important. Otherwise, rights claims can degenerate into mere as-sertion of self with no regard for others. Human rights are really God’srights over humanity more than one person’s rights over another. God isevery person’s creator, so God is the one to direct how people treat oneanother. People have rights; but contrary to much secular thinking, theydo not have a right to those rights. Those rights flow from the God-givendignity rooted in creation in God’s image. Moreover, just as humanity is notmerely a collection of separate people but is also an interrelated whole, sohumanity’s status as created in God’s image has implications for the wholeof humanity. God intends justice to be a hallmark of human society, as it isof God’s own character. How the weakest people in a community are treatedis an indicator of the extent to which a community is living out its statusas created in God’s image.People never warrant less than what justice requires, but they frequentlywarrant more—they warrant love. Love is essential to who God is, and isGod’s ultimate intention for relationships of people with one another and26© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual DisabilitiesFrom The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017with the natural world as well. Love involves giving more than the minimumrequired and requires more than utilitarian maximizing of social benefit. Itgenerates true solidarity and communion. Such social blessings are as muchhuman rights as are personal protections and provisions. Not only do allwarrant receiving love because they are in God’s image—they also must loveothers for the same reason. People can empower others to love themselves—and their neighbors as themselves—by helping them to recognize everyoneas created in God’s image.Implications for Persons with PIDPersons with PID are among those created in God’s image and, as a result,warrant special care and welcome. They have an image-based dignity thatdoes not waver, regardless of their ability or potential ability (Yong 2007, 173;Rodriguez 2008, 50). Persons with disabilities have a special connection withGod, and God intends them to become a reflection of God as well. For per-sons with disabilities, as for others, God’s intention must await resurrectionafter death before it can be completely fulfilled. Humanity’s creation in theimage of God can make one of its most powerful differences in this worldlong before then, however, as people live out their image-related status bycaring for those with PID.Apart from the biblical affirmation that all are created in God’s image,the rights of all individuals are not secured and our duties toward otherpersons remain unclear. If people do not believe human worth is externallyconferred, then they must look to internal characteristics to establish whatabout human beings makes them unique and, therefore, worthy of respect.For centuries, philosophers and theologians have tried to discover whichhuman characteristics set “persons” apart from “non-persons” and give theformer a unique dignity. Unfortunately, regardless of the characteristics se-lected, some humans are necessarily left out of the “personhood” categoryas a result. They are thereby considered devoid of human dignity and so notdue the respect and protections that such dignity requires.Past MistreatmentWhere people have understood being in God’s image (and thus human worth)in terms of the rational capacities that humans possess, persons with PID areoften deemed less worthy of respect and protection (Hall 1986, 108-9; Brink2001, 93). Some Christian leaders in the history of the church, such as Thom-as Aquinas, have considered the image of God in mentally-compromised27© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual DisabilitiesFrom The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017people to be “practically nonexistent” (1947, I.93.8).10The result has been adegrading of all people with intellectual disabilities—a denial of their dignity(Primavesi 2003, 187; Hilkert 2002, 78). This has led to their exclusion fromactivities and communities in which they ought to be able to participate(Moore 2003, 106). They have been viewed at best as “marred images,” re-sulting in “perilous” outcomes (Reynolds 2008, 177).Given this background, it is not surprising that when disabled peoplegathered at a symposium in Sheffield, England to compare their experienc-es, they repeatedly reported not being viewed or treated as “made in God’simage” the way that other people are.11As one participant painfully triedto understand the source of the discrimination that she regularly experi-ences: “I became disabled—so was I once in God’s image, but am no lon-ger?” (Davies-John 2003, 124). Her experience participates in a long historyin which some Christian leaders such as Emil Brunner have denied thatnormal protections apply to people with profound disabilities (e.g., thosewho are “grossly retarded”) because of the compromise to God’s image thatthey consider to have occurred.12Apparently Martin Luther even advocateddrowning a “feebleminded” 12-year-old child because his severely limitedmental capacities appeared to evidence corruption of his reason and soul.13Such treatment of people with disabilities was characteristic of the culturein which the early church developed,14and has offered an influential patternfor the church’s treatment of people with disabilities whenever Christianshave reduced being in God’s image to particular attributes.The Nazi holocaust is another powerful historical illustration of howthe idea of humanity in God’s image invites destructive misuse when peopleunderstand it to be referring to current human attributes. Adolf Hitler, aspart of developing his approach to the weaker members of society in his 1927bookMein Kampf, identifies the stronger members of society as “images ofthe Lord.” In contrast, the weaker members for Hitler are mere “deformities”10.See discussion in Hoekema (1994, 37).11.This symposium, a fruit of a World Council of Churches initiative, is discussed in Mayland (2003, 211).12.For Brunner (1952, 57), the protection of being in the image of God “ceases where true hu-man living ceases—on the borderline of imbecility or madness.” Wennberg (1985, 131), reflectingon whether all people are fully in God’s image and so have full moral standing, concludes: “thegrossly retarded… need not be assumed to possess a moral standing as full as that of a normalhuman adult.”13.Luther (1952, 387) reports this in a write-up of one of his famous “Table Talks.” See discussions inKanner (1964, 7); Towns & Groff (1972, 38-39).14.As Seneca (1995, 32) affirmed in the first century: “We destroy abnormal offspring at birth; chil-dren, too, if they are born weak or deformed, we drown.” Cf. discussion in Ferngren (2009, 101).28© 2017 Joni and Friends, Agoura Hills, CA. Used with permission.All rights reserved. Additional reproduction is prohibited.The Image of God, Bioethics, and Persons with Profound Intellectual DisabilitiesFrom The Journal of the Christian Institute on Disability (JCID) Vol. 6.1-6.2 – Spring/Summer & Fall/Winter 2017of that image to be “cleansed” from society (Hitler 1939, 606). What resultedin Nazi Germany were categories of people who wereuntermenschen(subhu-man), those in whom the attributes that constituted God’s image were mostdeformed, marred, distorted, etc. They became the targets of Nazi efforts toeliminate people with disabilities or other frailties through neglect, forcedsterilization, or killing.15Dietrich von Hildebrand was one of a relative few in Germany at the timewho recognized that it was precisely the biblical teaching that all of humani-ty continues in theundeformedimage of God that offered the greatest defenseagainst Hitler’s destructive initiatives. As he wrote, soon after being forced toflee Nazi Germany in 1933: “All of Western Christian civilization stands andfalls with the words of Genesis, ‘God made man in His image.’”16Hildebrandwas exceptional among Christians in his recognition of the importance ofunderstanding God’s image in a way that excluded the possibility of it beingdiminished. Sad, laments ethicist Lisa Cahill (2006, 58), has been “the dev-astating refusal by Christian theology to attribute the fullness of the imagoDei” to groups such as the millions exterminated in Nazi Germany.The Current ChallengeToday, Christians must be cautious in assuming biology alone informs theabilities, capacities, and potentialities of groups of people. What is deemed“natural,” “normal,” and deserving of moral attention may be dictated bypersons in power whose interests are self-serving. The dignity of persons withPID remains precarious. Within the arena of bioethics, which is a field thathelps to shape medical responses to persons with disabilities, debates con-tinue over the need for prenatal screenings to detect and potentially abortfetuses with genetic disabilities (Buchanan et al. 2000). Similar debates ad-dress the ethical rights of parents to euthanize newborns with disabilitiesthat are expected to be profound (Giubilini and Minerva 2013). Naturally,secular bioethicists do not appeal to the image of God when determiningwhether disabled newborns lack personhood, but the logic is analogous.Much like those who claim the image of God is damaged in some persons,15.Many influences helped to shape Hitler’s thinking, including the government-run programof forced sterilizations of intellectually disabled people in the United States. During the Nurem-burg Trials, that program was a primary precedent to which those defending the actions of Hitlerand his followers appealed. See http:/buckvbell.com and Lombardo (2008). Others have noted thevery same idea so captivating to Hitler—that God’s image can be damaged—has continued to beinfluential up to the present, to the detriment of the weakest people in society (Yong 2007, 173)16.As translated in Crosby (2006, 9).Please use all material uploaded and whatever I was able to copy for material to be used in the paper. And whatever references you can find on your own, noting that it has to be no more than 6 years old. Thanks
