The issue of stem cell research will once again be in the forefront after the August recess. We hear a lot of emotional, and at times irrational, debate on the morality of stem cell research. Yet the debate is often never about ethics or morality, it's about a narrow right wing Republican ideology that few knowledgable people share. Religion and morality are not the same thing, yet they are often erroneously equated.
Attached is a paper I wrote on the ethics of stem cell research as seen through the eyes of ethicists. It uses some philosophical terms you may not be familiar with but you should get the gist of the arguments.
A case can be made, pro and con, for stem cell research by referencing philosophers past and present. Next time you are bombarded with a particularly narrow view about the essence of morality...what is the right thing to do?...at least this may help give you some ammunition for making a thoughtful case.
Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research
The philosophical questions concerning stem cell research are broad and complex. They are advances in scientific research and human knowledge wrapped up in religion and hand-dipped in morality. What follows is a discussion of the science, the controversy over experimentation on human life and the ethical issues raised as a result.
Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro (meaning outside the body), and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. During in vitro fertilization, many embryos are created but only a few are actually implanted. Once a couple has the family they had hoped for, the leftover embryos are either donated for research purposes or discarded. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body (in vivo). The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst. Although the terms "blastocyst" and "embryo" are not scientifically equal, the terms will be used interchangeably throughout this paper for the sake of simplicity.
In the blastocyst, a small group of about 30 cells called the inner cell mass give rise to the hundreds of highly specialized cells needed to make up an adult organism. In the developing fetus, stem cells give rise to the multiple specialized cell types that make up the various organs and tissues.
Stem cells differ from other kinds of cells in the body. All stem cells -- regardless of their source -- have three general properties: they are capable of dividing and renewing themselves for long periods; they are pluripotent, meaning unspecialized; and given the proper chemical soup, they can give rise to specialized cell types. (Bourzac 1)
Stem cells hold great promise for the cure of regenerative or restorative cell-based diseases. For example, a patient with diabetes has lost function of the islet cells in her pancreas. The islet cells produce insulin, the substance that controls the amount of sugar in her bloodstream. If islet cells can be induced to grow in the laboratory and are then transplanted into this diabetic, she could be saved from a lifetime of blood glucose monitoring, daily injections and almost certain early death. In fact though, all this is in the supposition stage. There is, so far, no direct evidence that stem cell research will ultimately lead to a cure.
There are two basic questions in play here. First, since these embryos are human life if not yet human beings, should they be killed for experimental purposes? Second, if these embryos are to be discarded anyway, why not use them for the greater good? In other words, do these embryos have intrinsic or instrumental value?
On August 9, 2001, President Bush weighed in on the subject and rejected the notion that the federal government should subsidize stem cell research. (Bush et al) To no one's surprise, the issue was tied up in the ongoing abortion debate. The research itself was not outlawed, only the possibility of federal funding. The underlying question, still unanswered, is when does life begin? Through the 19th century, life did not begin until "quickening", the time when the mother could feel the fetus move. (Sagan) Current abortion laws were written with this old standard in mind. More recently, it has been determined that life begins when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. However, those against abortion have a take-no-prisoners attitude when it comes to the "pre-born", the bar has raised yet again with the stem cell debate and life has now been determined to begin at fertilization. (It won't be long now before the beginning of life is defined as when you're a "twinkle in your mother's eye".)
Bush indicated his own religious considerations with the statement "I believe life is a sacred gift from our creator". However, religions are all over the map on exactly when life begins. Within Bush's own Christian faith, Matthew 10:8 calls for man to "cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers and cast out demons" which could indicate support for this sort of research. In an argument against, Protestants also believe no community is really strong if it will not carry its very weakest members. The Catholic Church, surprisingly, has no official stand on the issue though it unofficially condemns it. The Jewish faith believes the fetus is part of the woman's body until it is 40 days old, therefore an embryo in a petri dish is not human because it is not in the womb. According to the Muslim faith, a fetus does not have a soul for at least 120 days after fertilization and is not human until ensoulment. Muslims are morally neutral on stem cell research. (Bourzac 2)
Even many anti-abortion advocates are neutral or accepting of stem cell research if they believe life begins when the embryo is implanted in the uterus. Pro-life advocates Senator Orrin Hatch and Nancy Reagan are eager proponents of this since they have family members with diseases that could be helped by stem cell research. (Odd how moral and religious concerns drop by the wayside when the debate affects someone personally.) This point of view can be justified when it is understood that every fertilized egg does not necessarily implant. Although such statistics are hard to accurately document, it is thought that fully 15-40% of pregnancies end spontaneously before the woman even knows she is pregnant. Which prompted the utilitarian, Peter Singer, to wonder...if embryos are sacred gifts from our creator why is the federal government therefore not funding research into why spontaneous abortion occurs in order to prevent it? Why teach teenagers abstinence? Why not recommend teenage girls go out and get themselves their very own sacred gift from their creator?1 Why not outlaw birth control all together? A utilitarian, using the maximum happiness model would see a lot of validity in these questions.
Non-moral standards aside, there are a number of ethical questions. Is a blastocyst a human being or a bundle of cells with human DNA, an early stage in the human life cycle or a full-fledged human being? Is the definition of "human" no more than the makeup of our DNA? Should a blastocyst have equal moral standing as you or me? Do we owe potential life a future?
Some of these questions can be analyzed within the traditions of classic Western philosophy. Kant's views could be used as an argument either for or against stem cell research. Kant states that "people should not be used as a means to an end". Bush himself made a toss-off homage to Kant when he opined "Even the noblest ends do not justify the means". Kant narrowly defined a moral being as autonomous and capable of free and rational action. On the one hand, this would exclude embryos as moral beings but as philosophers have updated Kant's ideas to take into account modern understanding of that which is human, the rights of the blastocyst would likely be taken into consideration. It is possible a modern Kant would determine that a blastocyst has a right to be conceived and born. Alternatively, Kant's deontology contends that motives are more important than consequences, that good will is most important. If one decides it is important to save the sick from suffering and that we should all do everything we can to save the sick then it would be a moral act. If the motive is to save the lives of sick people, the consequences of the action--the death of the blastocyst--might not be considered immoral. Only the intent matters and the intentions are good in this case. Obviously, this same argument can be made from the point of view of the blastocyst. The categorical imperative could be restated to say it would be morally wrong to destroy human life, no matter what stage of development. No one should consciously destroy human life, to do so would be an immoral act (Rosenstand 219)
The utilitarian approach may spell bad news for the blastocyst. Bentham defined a moral being is that which can feel pleasure or pain. By no stretch of the imagination would he have included an embryo in the realm of moral beings. Since the utilitarian believes happiness should be maximized for as many people as possible, it is doubtful it would be viewed as a moral dilemma to sacrifice a few cell divisions in order to realize happiness for many sick patients. If 100 embryos are sacrificed in order to improve the lives of millions of people, it would have to be considered a moral deed. (Rosenstand 175) An alternative, more modern and contrary utilitarian might conclude that we owe life to this blastocyst because in order to maximize happiness for future generations there has to be a future generation. Destruction of potential humans would be counterproductive for the maximum-happiness of future people. (des Jardins 76) However, human beings exhibit a propensity for reproducing themselves without the added boost of a few zillion blastocysts added to the ecosystem. Continuation of the species seems to be of little concern at this point.
Using the idea of anthropocentric extensionism, modern philosophers have started to expand the realm of moral beings that undoubtedly would have to include a blastocyst. But where should the boundaries of moral consideration be drawn? What exactly does it mean to be human? Is "human" reduced to just DNA or is there more to us than that? Albert Schweitzer proposed the theory of "reverence for life", Paul Taylor theorized that our ethics should be "biocentric" (life-centered). Though both value life in all its forms, their theories don't address where life begins or when a human being gains moral stature. Both suggest that life in its most rudimentary forms has intrinsic value but one wonders, how much? Taylor claims all living things are "teleological centers of life". In other words, all living things have the goal of living and a good of their own. (des Jardins 139) This might suggest that even at its earliest stages life should be of the utmost moral value. Mary Anne Warren introduces an intriguing new way to consider the options. She proposes three possible positions concerning the moral status of embryos:
- The embryo is property. It has no moral status so research is allowed.
- The embryo as person. It has full moral status so research is not allowed.
- The embryo as transient. It has some moral status so research is allowed under certain conditions.
Although Warren herself appears to fall into the "embryo as person" camp, she does at least acknowledge with the "embryo as transient" that it is possible not to confer equal moral status on the earliest forms of human life.
In conclusion, I could endlessly toss around pro and con arguments on this subject. There are no concrete, absolute ways to analyze this issue though some who feel they alone have absolute moral authority would have you believe otherwise. I understand the science, I can clearly see the nuances in the argument, both pro and con. The ethical debate has good points on both sides. Maybe because I have never had children, I can't get my head around the idea that a cluster of 100 cells is of the highest moral value. I am a Mary Anne Warren option 3 kind of person. Yes, the blastocyst undeniably contains human DNA but it doesn't have organs and nerves, skin and bones. It doesn't have thoughts and dreams and aspirations. It has no senses or personality. It isn't loved and cherished and named Suzie or Billy. It is a cluster of cells. It lives in a petri dish or in a liquid nitrogen storage tank and is given nary a thought until the provider's of the DNA are moved to decide its future. My body sheds the equivalent of half an embryo every month and I don't mourn its loss. I do not understand why there is such excessive regard for the life of a cell and so little concern for a living human being.
Because this is a "right to life" issue, this argument is fraught with emotion and has been skewered by politics. I imagine drawing a conclusion on the rights of the blastocyst will be just about as easy as settling the abortion debate. Meanwhile, while ethicists, politicians and priests dither, people die. What's moral in that?
Sources
Bourzac, Katherine, "Stem Cells and Public Funding: Moral Controversies and Scientific Issues", Journal of Young Investigators, Volume 5, Issue 3, December 2001
Bush and various speechwriters. For more of this pointless and muddled speech, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html
Sagan, Carl, "Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millineum" The specific URL for this information is at http://www.2think.org/carl_sagan_abortion.shtml
Singer, Peter "The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush", Dutton Books, Publisher
Rosenstand, Nina "The Moral of the Story: An Introduction to Ethics", McGraw/Hill, Publisher
Des Jardins, Joseph R. "Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy", Wadsworth Group, Publisher
Authors unknown. The Web site is http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/aihle/daley%20cp%2001.pdf "The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Finding Common Ground", University of Melbourne, Australia