Stem Cell Research
Curtis at a-sdf and I have had some discussions, or disagreements, about stem cell research. He has been gracious and generous to me throughout the discussion, so I decided to answer his comment on my Why the garbage can? with another post. He comments:
I think the ethical argument can be made on utilitarian grounds.It would seem that neither option is ethically sound for those who view human embryos as persons. Simply put, they shouldn't be thrown away. Having said that, this fact doesn't impact the research end of the question, because performing research that involves destroying the embryo is, ethically, the same thing. Thus allowing them to be destroyed in research is simply making it legal to throw the embryos away in a different fashion.
There are between 100,000 and 200,000 pre-embryonic cells abandoned in fertility clinics. Most donors for various reasons will not give them to people who are not the genetic parents. Few people want to adopt them. These frozen cells will die by natural degradation, equipment malfunction, or operator error. Fertilization clinics are under no compulsion to keep them alive even if they could.
These clusters of 100 undifferentiated cells, that is, no human anatomy, could be used for stem cell research. All current lines approved by President Bush have degraded to the point where they are useless for research.
I don't see a third option in the matter. The cells are going to die. Why not use them to heal the living?
I am sure we will continue to disagree, but I ain't throwin' the towel. I'll bet ten bucks to a donut he ain't either.
posted by Lynn @ 10:15 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Without backtracking to read the original discussion, it seems to me that he really needs to be arguing that there shouldn't be embryos, not what to do with them what once you have them. I agree: better to put them to good use than in the garbage.
I'll see your donut and raise you a coffee. :)
I've never much been a fan of utilitarian ethics except in highly specialized situations, (of which this is one) and I must admit that your argument here is the most persuasive I've seen. In an effort to discourage misunderstanding, let me re-state your assertions as I see them:
1)There are a large number of embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway- the question is by what method they are going to be destroyed.
2)Destroying them by throwing them out benefits no one
3)Destroying them in the course of research has the potential to benefit millions
4)Thus it is better to allow the embryos to be destroyed via number 3 as opposed to number 2, as a larger number of people will benefit.
As this argument is framed, I can't contradict it. If the choice really is simply between throwing them out without using them to benefit millions or doing research that will advance science and medicine in such a way as to better the lives of countless individuals, then the choice is simple: use them for research.
But I have to question whether or not this is a false dillema. Is the issue really a matter of choosing between simply destroying them or using them for research? I don't think it has to be. It seems to me that if these hundreds of millions of embryos are indeed persons (as I assert), then the question is not "what method of destroying them is better" but rather "should we allow them to be destroyed at all".
So, in conclusion, as your post stands, I agree: of the two options you've stated, research is clearly the better choice. But I don't think either of the options is ethically acceptable. And I don't think that this dilemma is really at the heart of the issue, which in my opinion continues to be "are embryos persons?" If they aren't, then research is the best option, if they are, destroying them in any manner isn't morally permissable.
Thanks for the rational dialouge, I appreciate your kind words and clear-minded thinking. It is so much easier to dialouge that way, and I thank you for it.
Looking forward to your reply. ;)
Curtis,
I raise a mocha latte and a double chocolate brownie even though it's waaaay off my new diet. :)
Whether pre-embryonic cells are persons does not seem to count in this case. Unclaimed frozen cells die just like all cells eventually die. Freezing them does not make them immortal in the physical sense. There are over 100,000 pre-embryonic cell clusters in clinics that will soon die because they will not partake in the nourishment of a mother. Even if they are not thrown out, they will eventually perish.
Some people believe these cells are ensouled beings and others do not. The reality is that we have clusters of cells which statistically, and I emphasize statistically because in-vitro fertilization is not highly successful, will never become fully mature and thriving human beings. When you multiply that times the low probability that anyone other than the intended parent wants the abandoned cells, then times the probability that the intended parent will go through all the testing to grant access to them for another person, the chances of survival are nil.
Some may find the choices deplorable, but the choices are what they are. I am still not seeing a third way.
I personally would trade the life of a 100 cells that have no physical human anatomy for the life of a five year old child afflicted with a life long disease who could be cured if research were allowed. That isn't where I am coming from though.
Post a Comment
<< Home