Why Embryonic Stem Cell Research Should Stop
by Camille S. Williams

Good public policy will encourage respect for human life at every stage of development--and even after death.

New guidelines from the National Institutes for Health (NIH) reverse the ban on governmental funding for experiments using "human pluripotent stem cells" as long as those cells come from "excess" embryos unused by fertility clinics, or from "non-living"-aborted-fetuses.

Fifty-two patient advocacy and medical specialty groups support such research in the hope that embryonic stem cells-which have the ability to form almost any tissue or organ of the body, and may reproduce indefinitely in a laboratory-could be harnessed to create medical products to treat diabetes, congestive heart failure, Parkinson's or Alzheimer's diseases. A careful examination of some of the arguments justifying such research shows that fetal stem cell research is immoral and unnecessary.

Argument One: Thousands of unused embryos stored at fertility clinics are going to waste in fertility clinics when they might contribute to the cure for many ills. At least since the Nuremburg Code, ethical norms require that we do not inflict death or disability upon any unconsenting individual of our species merely to benefit others.⁽¹⁾ Respect for human life requires that we resist the temptation to use the unborn as "disposable research material."⁽²⁾

Each of us was once as that embryo is now, and even the tiniest human entities are unique, with inherent moral worth. Extracting fetal stem cells from an entity which has the capacity to become Ellen, or Paul, or Richard damages or destroys that living being, or in effect uses it as part of a biological factory producing liver cells, neurons, or an organ for transplant.

Arguing that this recycling avoids waste echoes the utilitarian justification for some past gruesome medical experimentation on concentration camp victims, prison inmates, or minority groups.⁽³⁾ This is another way of saying that some human beings (the unborn) do not deserve the respect we ordinarily reserve for human life. Rather than look for ways to "use" these embryos, we might ask ourselves whether it is moral to overproduce these embryos in the first place. Make no mistake, if the excess embryos can be harvested for research which will eventually make corporations huge sums of money, embryos in excess will continue to be produced.

Argument Two. Research using human fetal stem cells is unavoidably necessary. We have the capacity to find morally acceptable alternatives. Research on adult stem cells is promising, and may allow the production of cell lines, or tissues or organ transplants from consenting individuals whose donation will not be the means of their destruction. Even cadavers have supplied viable brain stem cells; and bone marrow cells and skin cells have been "turned" into nerve cells.⁽⁴⁾ Other researchers believe that people may be able to grow their own liver transplants, for example, using bone marrow transplants from consenting donors.⁽⁵⁾

Argument Three: Compassion for the afflicted requires that we declare embryonic stem research moral and necessary. It is right to seek to relieve human suffering and disability, but embryonic stem cell research requires compassion for one subset of humanity, the afflicted we can recognize, at the expense of another subset of humanity, human beings at the earliest stages of development. Compassion unevenly applied results in lopsided justice, and evils such as slavery or genocide.⁽⁶⁾ That we would use some members of the human family as a means to our ends, will unavoidably result in less respect for human life generally. We would be churning up our own offspring to keep ourselves alive and healthy, a result that is not compassionate, moral, nor necessary.

A few years ago it was proposed that the heat from Swedish crematoria be used to heat buildings. The outraged public was unpersuaded that they should not let that heating source go to waste. Compassion for those who cannot afford fuel to heat their homes does not require that we use human corpses for fuel; compassion for the hungry does not demand that we adopt cannibalism. Good public policy will encourage respect for human life at every stage of development--and even after death.

ENDNOTES

1. See Richard M. Doerflinger's testimony before the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, April 16, 1999, at http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/issues/bioethic/nbac.htm

2. Id.

3. See Lois Collins, "Panel Studying Medical Research," Deseret News, October 25, 2000. http://desnews.com/cgi-bin/libstory_reg?dn00&0010250137.

4. AP, "Scientists Bring Cells from Dead Back to Life," Deseret News, November 6, 2000, http://www.desnews.com/cgi-bin/libstory_reg?dn00&001160562.

5. Rueters News Service, "Livers Can Regenerate Using Stem Cells, Scientists Say," Deseret News, July 27, 2000, http://www.desnews.com/cgi-bin/libstory_reg?dn00&0007270023.

6. See Leon Kass's discussion of misapplied compassion in "Aldous Huxley, Brave New World," First Things, http://print.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0003/articles/huxley.html.

Click here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.

Camille S. Williams, J.D., is a Provo attorney with an interest in family law issues. She is the author of "Same-sex Marriage and the Ends of Desire," The World & I, October 1996, 299-319.

Public Forum Archive