The following is the result of ongoing discussions I have had with a coworker on stem cell research.
The italicized section below is an excerpt from an e-mail from my coworker to myself. My response follows.
What I have been trying to get across to you by sending you articles (from scholarly publications I might add) is that, yes, adult stem cells can be used for a lot of things that we are just now learning about. But the truth is that there are certain things that embryonic stem cells can do that no other stem cells can.
As far as the ethical question goes, the lives that you are saving are people that are conscious of their bodies and the world around them. They know to fear pain and have families that know and love them. A fetus is not conscious of what is going on outside its mother's belly. Up to a certain point, they function on levels similar to my cats. But only crazy people argue against killing animals, right?!!
What about the Iraqi civilians that we kill everyday???? Or any other person involved in the war, for that matter! Are we not killing them to save ourselves??
This is a complex issue, especially when you try to explore the ethical components involved. It's easier to pigeon-hole the discussion into embryonic stem cells vs. war, but, you are right, the overall ethical dilemmas persist throughout.
Here's what I believe in regards to stem cell research:
1. I believe there are benefits that can be gained from stem cell research, both adult and embryonic. That is a scientific fact. However, I believe the claims from both sides of the issue are a little extravagent. We will never develop every potential cure or treatment from just using adult stem cells. It just won't happen. On the other side, embryonic stem cells are not better than sliced bread. While there is promise in scientific gain from using them, to date there are very, very few actual cures/treatments that have been derived from embryonic stem cell research when compared to adult stem cell research. So, in a world totally freed from ethical constraints, the ideal situation would be to use both lines of stem cells in scientific research.
2. I believe in the sanctity of life. I find it reprehensible that someone would be willing to sacrifice a human embryo -- whether derived from cloning or embryo harvest (including the frozen embryos) -- to improve the health of another person. Based on my beliefs, an embryo is a person. There will never be another person completely identical to that embryo -- genetically, environmentally, or behaviorally (not to mention spiritually). Even a clone of the embryo will not be 100% identical in those three aspects. While the genetics may be similar, the environment in which the embryo is developed will never be the same, even in the laboratory. Minute changes in temperature and humidity, contamination from equipment, light from microscopes, the breath of a scientist, etc. may result in genetic expressions that are different from the original clone. Bottom line -- I think it is wrong to kill another person to benefit another (see #3 for more rambling thoughts).
3. I think it is wrong to kill another person to benefit another. This is, of course, a bold statement that has the potential to be picked apart by circumstances.
a. In regards to medical research, I strongly oppose the destruction of human life, regardless of age, simply to further scientific knowledge or to produce nebulous health benefits for others, no matter how large those benefits might be in the long run. In my opinion, there is no difference between killing an embryo for the collection of stem cells versus killing an adult to harvest organs for another person. Would there be a benefit to harvesting organs from live persons? Of course -- that is why we have organ donor programs. But there is a difference between the voluntary donation of organs from brain-dead persons versus the killing of viable living organisms to obtain them.
b. Protection of Self. Now, what about this question in light of the issue of war or crime. I have stated that it is wrong to kill another person to benefit another. But, isn't war a situation where we benefit from the death of our enemies? If someone breaks into your home and threatens a loved one with death or bodily harm, wouldn't you attempt to stop them, resulting in a benefit to you (your loved one doesn't get hurt or killed) at a cost to the other person? The answer, to both questions, is...of course. But, when you are addressing issues of war or crime or violence, you must consider other factors. There is a concept of "just war" that has been developed in the Christian church over the course of the centuries. This was first postulated by Augustine, but was picked up on and discussed by others. This concept can also be applied to individual issues as well. According to this concept, a nation can go to war with another nation for just causes. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered, whether that is an attack on another nation or the repression of peoples. The goal of a just war is to re-establish peace, and there must be a reasonable hope for success. Finally, care must be taken to only engage enemy combatants and not civilians. So, is it wrong to kill another person to benefit another? Yes and no. It depends. In the case of a just war, it is permissible to kill some in order to right wrongs and benefit society and restore peace. Is the death of an innocent civilian in Iraq the same as the death of an embryo for stem cell research? No. The goals of the two actions that resulted in the deaths are different. In the first case, the innocent civilian was not the target of attack but was an unavoidable victim of an attack against enemy combatants. In war, the innocent sometimes die. Soldiers sometimes die. But their death is not in vain -- it is for the greater good of correcting social injustice and the restoration of peace and a result of the overall conflict. On the other hand, the death of an embryo is just that. It was a premeditated attack on another living being without provocation. It is not the byproduct of a just war -- it can actually be termed an unjust attack on another living being without their permission. It is a wrong that needs to be redressed. In my humble opinion, there is no difference between Saddam Hussein cruelly persecuting and torturing and killing his own people versus the killing of innocent embryos, either for stem cell research or for abortion. Both cases are morally reprehensible.
4. Back to Stem Cell Research. So, to sum it all up, I would prefer to see stem cell research limited to adult stem cells and to existing embryonic cell lines where the embryo has already been destroyed. Scientific gain without the introduction of additional death and destruction. Will it produce the same results as unrestricted embryonic stem cell research? No. But, since there are viable research avenues outside of embryonic stem cell research that may produce results, then I am in favor of using them to the maximum extent possible. We must always keep in mind that the ends do not justify the means. You cannot destroy life now because the promise of future health benefits is great.
No comments:
Post a Comment