Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
Moral Choices and Embryonic Stem Cell Research
April 26 2007
How does one weigh human rights? How does one define what it is to be deserving of them? These questions are central to the ethical and moral controversy surrounding the debate over embryonic stem cell research. On the one hand, there are millions of people alive today with families, friends, and lives to live, who suffer from disease, illness and deformity. These people could benefit from research on embryonic stem cells. On the other hand, there are the human embryos having the potential within themselves to develop into full grown humans. Do these embryos deserve to be treated as equal to all the millions of people who are living as fully developed humans and who suffer from disease and illness? Should they be sacrificed for the good of the many? Should their destruction for research even be seen as a sacrifice? The Pontifical Academy for Life released a statement on the ethics of embryonic stem cell research. It reads:
The first ethical problem, which is fundamental, can be formulated thus: Is it morally licit to produce and/or use living human embryos for the preparation of ES cells? The answer is negative, for the following reasons: On the basis of a complete biological analysis, the living human embryo is - from the moment of the union of the gametes - a human subject with a well defined identity, which from that point begins its own coordinated, continuous and gradual development, such that at no later stage can it be considered as a simple mass of cells.
An opposing view point was expressed recently on an online forum the poster (screen name L a t e r a l u s) wrote:
Isn't discarding stem-cell research just as unethical to the millions of people suffering from genetic disorders, lost limbs (arms, legs, hands, feet) damaged/partially functioning/non-functioning organs (pancreas, liver, kidneys, heart, lungs, bladder, eyes, cochlea), mental retardation, nerve damage, ect?? Or should people care more about a 3 day old zygote that doesn't hold any human characteristics and doesn't have a brain, a conscience, awareness of any type?
The matter rests on two issues: the truth of the matter or ethics, and the choice of the matter or morality. God is absolute, and his law is absolute; so the ethics of embryonic stem cell research is also absolutely right or wrong according to Gods divine truth. This is considered to be the ethical content of a thing, the nature of good. Ethics are understood through a properly formed conscience which takes into account both reason and faith. Since faith is involved in the proper formation and understanding of the ethics, and faith is a subjective matter, the individual person must be taken into account when inquiring into the morality of a decision. Someone who, through no fault of their own, does not have a properly formed conscience cannot be held to the same standard as one who has a properly formed conscience when judging the moral quality of their choice. This inquiry will examine the different factors involved in choosing to do or approve of embryonic stem cell research from a moral stand point.
The Church teaches a consistence of life doctrine that human life is sacred from conception to natural death. It is for this reason, and from the teachings of Christ, that the Catholic Church views the beginning of life as from the very beginning of life. Every person alive today or that has ever lived began their life on earth as a fertilized egg, an embryo. This is when human life begins and the Church accepts that life begins from the moment of conception, and life is sacred. Interfering with this process in anyway is a grave moral wrong in the eyes of the Church based on the teachings of Christ. To do or approve of embryonic stem cell research that results in the destruction of the embryo is, therefore, a moral evil. This is a claim on the ethics of the act which is based in part on faith, and in part on reason. But what are the factors involved in the morality of the issue? The Church identifies three factors in moral choice: the object, the intent, and the circumstance. This inquiry will now examine each of these factors in the case of embryonic stem cell research.
What is the object of embryonic stem cell research? It is different in every case. The object of embryonic stem cell research for the corporate CEO of a major pharmaceutical company may simply be profit. If this is the case then even proponents of the research might have objections to the morality of the CEOs motives. One might also have as the object, scientific knowledge. A scientists desire to further his or her understanding of the development of an embryo for example. This as a goal in and of itself without mindfulness of the consequences may also be seen as an immoral object. What if the research leads to the development of a cure for cancer, what if it leads to a destructive biological weapon? If the goal is merely the research and knowledge without regard for how that knowledge might be used then it can be seen as an immoral object. Generally speaking, however, the object of embryonic stem cell research is the advance of medical science to cure disease, end suffering, and to help humanity. This goal is a noble goal and a good moral object. It is difficult to argue that the desire to help people is not a good object or goal and it is one of the primary motivations for doing embryonic stem cell research. So although there are less than good moral reasons for doing embryonic stem cell research, generally speaking the object in mind is good, the health and welfare of humanity.
The intent is the action used to achieve the object. In the case of embryonic stem cell research the research itself is the intent used to achieve some goal or object. As was said the object can be less than good but generally speaking the object or the intended goal is good, the advance of human welfare. Research on human embryos is the path by which this goal is sought and that path has many factors and variables and can be followed in different ways. One might choose to attempt to do the research in a manner that avoids the destruction of the embryo. One may choose to use only those excess embryos created for the purpose of in vitro fertilization that will generally end up being discarded after a time anyway, coming to no good use. Or one might not care if the embryo is destroyed at all. One might intentionally farm the creation of human embryos specifically for the purpose of research. So the character of the research itself can have a profound effect on the moral quality of it.
If embryonic stem cell research can be done by using stem cells gathered without destroying the embryo then no ethically wrong act has been committed. If stem cells could be drawn from an embryo without effecting its development then it would be akin to drawing blood or taking a kidney from an adult for the purpose of helping another. Stem cell research done on adult stem cells and those gathered from umbilical cords and other sources is perfectly ethical since it does no harm to any human being. Embryonic stem cells, however, have a greater plasticity or ability to differentiate into many different types of cells than do adult stem cells so they have a greater research potential. And if these cells can be gathered without the destruction of an embryo for the object of helping people in the medical field, then embryonic stem cell research in this form would be both ethically and morally good, it would seem. One may be able to approve of, or perhaps even participate in, such research and be on good moral ground, but only under these circumstances where the embryo is not destroyed.
The character of the intended action of embryonic stem cell research can make such research either morally acceptable or morally reprehensible. Research that is done on stem cells gathered in such a way that the embryo is not destroyed may in fact make that research morally acceptable while research that results in the destruction of the embryo is not morally acceptable. The source of the embryonic stem cells must now be taken into account in the interpretation of the circumstances of the intended research. It was said earlier in this inquiry that a scientist who had as his or her goal knowledge without regard to the consequence of their action might be guilty of having an immoral object. Does it not then also follow that a scientist with the good object of helping people and the good intent of gathering embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo, must also take into account the consequences of his or her actions as well? If the scientist does the research in this way knowing that the embryo used although not destroyed by the research, will be discarded anyway, does this knowledge change the moral quality of his or her research? These factors must be taken into consideration, but as to whether they change the moral quality of the action (making it immoral to gather embryonic stem cells from embryos created for in vitro fertilization) is undetermined by this inquiry. But it does raise the separate issue of the ethics of in vitro fertilization. The key point in this area is respect for the embryo. For it is essentially the destruction of the embryo which makes embryonic stem cell research unethical. If the research can be done with respect for the embryo it can be done morally.
The specific character or form under which the research is conducted is not to be confused with the circumstances of the decision to conduct the research. The circumstances of the decision might better be described as the influences on the decision as opposed to the specific character and circumstances of the intended action. For example what mental factors or what physical factors are involved, would be a question concerning the circumstances influencing the decision. What if a scientist had a family member or was themselves suffering from disease? What if the scientist was transferred to the stem cell department of his company from another area that was less controversial? These circumstances could influence one to do the research even if they had though it might be immoral. The influence on the decision cannot change the overall moral and ethical properties of the action, although they might lessen the moral gravity of the decision. Decisions made under duress or stress are not as morally culpable as those made under full introspection and contemplation. The actual character of the intended action can effect the morality of the issue while the influencing circumstances on the decision do not change the morality but they can change the moral gravity of the decision. Harvesting stem cells without destroying the embryo may in fact be a moral way of doing the research while choosing to do the research while destroying the embryo because ones child is dying of cancer would still be immoral (because the embryo is destroyed) but the consequences or judgement of the decision may be mitigated by the circumstances.
It seems that under certain conditions in which the embryo is not destroyed and treated with the respect of a human being, embryonic stem cell research can, in fact, be a good moral choice. However, this is not the way in which the research is conducted since a way has not yet been found of harvesting stem cells successfully for research without destroying the embryo. So then the question of moral gravity would be concerned with what influences or circumstances exist in the decision to support or conduct embryonic stem cell research that results in the destruction of the embryo? One factor is the belief that the intended recipients of the research have greater rights than the embryos. The argument put forward at the beginning of this inquiry stated should people care more about a 3 day old zygote that doesn't hold any human characteristics and doesn't have a brain, a conscience, awareness of any type? This is an improper interpretation of the facts at hand. The claim that life begins at conception does not place a greater care or emphasis on the embryo over the intended recipient of scientific research done on the embryo. The claim states that all human beings are equal and that embryos are human beings and deserve equal treatment. This does not place any greater emphasis on any one party. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research are not (from the Catholic perspective) after more protection or a greater emphasis on the embryos, they seek equality for all parties. It is the proponents of embryonic stem cell research who are placing a greater emphasis on the life of the intended recipient of the research over the embryo by stating that embryos do not deserve equal treatment as human beings for one reason or another. It may be that they do not see an embryo as a person. Or it may be that since many excess embryos are created for in vitro fertilization (and these embryos will never be given the opportunity to be brought to full term) it would be a waste not to use them to help save lives if the families who donated the embryos gave their consent for them to be used for research. These beliefs that make the embryo less than equal have a great influence on the circumstances surrounding the choice to support or conduct embryonic stem cell research. With this view in mind, the culpability of one choosing the unethical intent of conducting research that results in the destruction of an embryo is mitigated by how one interprets the intent based on an understanding that the embryo is not an equal party. And it is easy to see an embryo as not being an equal party since it is essentially a mass of cells that doesn't hold any human characteristics and doesn't have a brain, a conscience, [or] awareness of any type.
There are several factors involved in making a decision concerning ones position and action on the topic of embryonic stem cell research. The object or goal of such research can make ones position of action immoral if ones goal is pure profit or some other, less than honorable, object. Generally the object in mind is an advance in medical knowledge for the benefit and welfare of all humankind and so the object or goal of embryonic stem cell research is generally a moral and noble one. The intent or the action that leads to achieving this noble goal of increasing medical knowledge for the benefit of human kind is the research itself. Depending on the character of the research it is possible to argue that it can be done morally if the embryo is not destroyed and is treated with equal respect and the dignity that one would treat any human being. However, no matter what the goal in mind is, the ends never justifies the means. Therefore, the intentional destruction of a human embryo for the purpose of research is not justified by the possible benefits that could arise from this action. The object and the intent form the morality of embryonic stem cell research and it is possible that such research could be done morally under certain characteristics. If one chooses, however, to support or participate in research that violates the moral qualifications, the moral gravity of that decision can be mitigated by the specific circumstances or influences involved in the reaching of that decision. The fact that it is difficult to see an embryo as an equal human, combined with the fact that embryos are created for the process of in vitro fertilization, greatly influences ones decision in this matter and may reduce the moral gravity of deciding that embryonic stem cell research is morally acceptable.
Morality and ethics are difficult subjects to discuss. Christians believe in one God and in one eternal truth, Christians should ideally be ethical absolutists. An issue such as embryonic stem cell research that results in the destruction of an embryo is either right or wrong. But a Christian should also be a moral realist and recognize that the answer to an ethical question is elusive and uncertain for many. Those who have been given the gift of faith and understand Gods eternal truth in this matter, they must reject anything that compromises the dignity of human life at any stage. But they must also recognize that not everyone has the gift of faith, not everyone believes in Gods eternal truth. They, for their part, must try to educate those who do not know or believe in God on His divine truth in this matter for God has sent all who believe in Him out to spread the good news of his Gospel. In doing so one cannot force Gods truth onto anyone for that does not respect their dignity as human persons. If God desired all peoples to follow His eternal truth then He could give the gift of faith to all and force them, in a sense, to follow it by His own power. But that is not what God does. God has given humanity freedom to choose our own path and Christians must respect the freedom of those who follow a different path, often through no fault of their own. All one can do is spread the Word and to plant the seeds, they will grow on their own. One must do so by word and by example. Christians who do not do this only perpetuate the idea that the embryos is favored over the people who could benefit from the research. Christians must show them all the love of Christ so that they recognize that no one is being favored. They must be shown that Christian respect all human life equally at every stage of life and this is why Christians feel that the destruction of a human embryo is wrong no matter what the benefit of doing so may be.
April 26 2007
How does one weigh human rights? How does one define what it is to be deserving of them? These questions are central to the ethical and moral controversy surrounding the debate over embryonic stem cell research. On the one hand, there are millions of people alive today with families, friends, and lives to live, who suffer from disease, illness and deformity. These people could benefit from research on embryonic stem cells. On the other hand, there are the human embryos having the potential within themselves to develop into full grown humans. Do these embryos deserve to be treated as equal to all the millions of people who are living as fully developed humans and who suffer from disease and illness? Should they be sacrificed for the good of the many? Should their destruction for research even be seen as a sacrifice? The Pontifical Academy for Life released a statement on the ethics of embryonic stem cell research. It reads:
The first ethical problem, which is fundamental, can be formulated thus: Is it morally licit to produce and/or use living human embryos for the preparation of ES cells? The answer is negative, for the following reasons: On the basis of a complete biological analysis, the living human embryo is - from the moment of the union of the gametes - a human subject with a well defined identity, which from that point begins its own coordinated, continuous and gradual development, such that at no later stage can it be considered as a simple mass of cells.
An opposing view point was expressed recently on an online forum the poster (screen name L a t e r a l u s) wrote:
Isn't discarding stem-cell research just as unethical to the millions of people suffering from genetic disorders, lost limbs (arms, legs, hands, feet) damaged/partially functioning/non-functioning organs (pancreas, liver, kidneys, heart, lungs, bladder, eyes, cochlea), mental retardation, nerve damage, ect?? Or should people care more about a 3 day old zygote that doesn't hold any human characteristics and doesn't have a brain, a conscience, awareness of any type?
The matter rests on two issues: the truth of the matter or ethics, and the choice of the matter or morality. God is absolute, and his law is absolute; so the ethics of embryonic stem cell research is also absolutely right or wrong according to Gods divine truth. This is considered to be the ethical content of a thing, the nature of good. Ethics are understood through a properly formed conscience which takes into account both reason and faith. Since faith is involved in the proper formation and understanding of the ethics, and faith is a subjective matter, the individual person must be taken into account when inquiring into the morality of a decision. Someone who, through no fault of their own, does not have a properly formed conscience cannot be held to the same standard as one who has a properly formed conscience when judging the moral quality of their choice. This inquiry will examine the different factors involved in choosing to do or approve of embryonic stem cell research from a moral stand point.
The Church teaches a consistence of life doctrine that human life is sacred from conception to natural death. It is for this reason, and from the teachings of Christ, that the Catholic Church views the beginning of life as from the very beginning of life. Every person alive today or that has ever lived began their life on earth as a fertilized egg, an embryo. This is when human life begins and the Church accepts that life begins from the moment of conception, and life is sacred. Interfering with this process in anyway is a grave moral wrong in the eyes of the Church based on the teachings of Christ. To do or approve of embryonic stem cell research that results in the destruction of the embryo is, therefore, a moral evil. This is a claim on the ethics of the act which is based in part on faith, and in part on reason. But what are the factors involved in the morality of the issue? The Church identifies three factors in moral choice: the object, the intent, and the circumstance. This inquiry will now examine each of these factors in the case of embryonic stem cell research.
What is the object of embryonic stem cell research? It is different in every case. The object of embryonic stem cell research for the corporate CEO of a major pharmaceutical company may simply be profit. If this is the case then even proponents of the research might have objections to the morality of the CEOs motives. One might also have as the object, scientific knowledge. A scientists desire to further his or her understanding of the development of an embryo for example. This as a goal in and of itself without mindfulness of the consequences may also be seen as an immoral object. What if the research leads to the development of a cure for cancer, what if it leads to a destructive biological weapon? If the goal is merely the research and knowledge without regard for how that knowledge might be used then it can be seen as an immoral object. Generally speaking, however, the object of embryonic stem cell research is the advance of medical science to cure disease, end suffering, and to help humanity. This goal is a noble goal and a good moral object. It is difficult to argue that the desire to help people is not a good object or goal and it is one of the primary motivations for doing embryonic stem cell research. So although there are less than good moral reasons for doing embryonic stem cell research, generally speaking the object in mind is good, the health and welfare of humanity.
The intent is the action used to achieve the object. In the case of embryonic stem cell research the research itself is the intent used to achieve some goal or object. As was said the object can be less than good but generally speaking the object or the intended goal is good, the advance of human welfare. Research on human embryos is the path by which this goal is sought and that path has many factors and variables and can be followed in different ways. One might choose to attempt to do the research in a manner that avoids the destruction of the embryo. One may choose to use only those excess embryos created for the purpose of in vitro fertilization that will generally end up being discarded after a time anyway, coming to no good use. Or one might not care if the embryo is destroyed at all. One might intentionally farm the creation of human embryos specifically for the purpose of research. So the character of the research itself can have a profound effect on the moral quality of it.
If embryonic stem cell research can be done by using stem cells gathered without destroying the embryo then no ethically wrong act has been committed. If stem cells could be drawn from an embryo without effecting its development then it would be akin to drawing blood or taking a kidney from an adult for the purpose of helping another. Stem cell research done on adult stem cells and those gathered from umbilical cords and other sources is perfectly ethical since it does no harm to any human being. Embryonic stem cells, however, have a greater plasticity or ability to differentiate into many different types of cells than do adult stem cells so they have a greater research potential. And if these cells can be gathered without the destruction of an embryo for the object of helping people in the medical field, then embryonic stem cell research in this form would be both ethically and morally good, it would seem. One may be able to approve of, or perhaps even participate in, such research and be on good moral ground, but only under these circumstances where the embryo is not destroyed.
The character of the intended action of embryonic stem cell research can make such research either morally acceptable or morally reprehensible. Research that is done on stem cells gathered in such a way that the embryo is not destroyed may in fact make that research morally acceptable while research that results in the destruction of the embryo is not morally acceptable. The source of the embryonic stem cells must now be taken into account in the interpretation of the circumstances of the intended research. It was said earlier in this inquiry that a scientist who had as his or her goal knowledge without regard to the consequence of their action might be guilty of having an immoral object. Does it not then also follow that a scientist with the good object of helping people and the good intent of gathering embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo, must also take into account the consequences of his or her actions as well? If the scientist does the research in this way knowing that the embryo used although not destroyed by the research, will be discarded anyway, does this knowledge change the moral quality of his or her research? These factors must be taken into consideration, but as to whether they change the moral quality of the action (making it immoral to gather embryonic stem cells from embryos created for in vitro fertilization) is undetermined by this inquiry. But it does raise the separate issue of the ethics of in vitro fertilization. The key point in this area is respect for the embryo. For it is essentially the destruction of the embryo which makes embryonic stem cell research unethical. If the research can be done with respect for the embryo it can be done morally.
The specific character or form under which the research is conducted is not to be confused with the circumstances of the decision to conduct the research. The circumstances of the decision might better be described as the influences on the decision as opposed to the specific character and circumstances of the intended action. For example what mental factors or what physical factors are involved, would be a question concerning the circumstances influencing the decision. What if a scientist had a family member or was themselves suffering from disease? What if the scientist was transferred to the stem cell department of his company from another area that was less controversial? These circumstances could influence one to do the research even if they had though it might be immoral. The influence on the decision cannot change the overall moral and ethical properties of the action, although they might lessen the moral gravity of the decision. Decisions made under duress or stress are not as morally culpable as those made under full introspection and contemplation. The actual character of the intended action can effect the morality of the issue while the influencing circumstances on the decision do not change the morality but they can change the moral gravity of the decision. Harvesting stem cells without destroying the embryo may in fact be a moral way of doing the research while choosing to do the research while destroying the embryo because ones child is dying of cancer would still be immoral (because the embryo is destroyed) but the consequences or judgement of the decision may be mitigated by the circumstances.
It seems that under certain conditions in which the embryo is not destroyed and treated with the respect of a human being, embryonic stem cell research can, in fact, be a good moral choice. However, this is not the way in which the research is conducted since a way has not yet been found of harvesting stem cells successfully for research without destroying the embryo. So then the question of moral gravity would be concerned with what influences or circumstances exist in the decision to support or conduct embryonic stem cell research that results in the destruction of the embryo? One factor is the belief that the intended recipients of the research have greater rights than the embryos. The argument put forward at the beginning of this inquiry stated should people care more about a 3 day old zygote that doesn't hold any human characteristics and doesn't have a brain, a conscience, awareness of any type? This is an improper interpretation of the facts at hand. The claim that life begins at conception does not place a greater care or emphasis on the embryo over the intended recipient of scientific research done on the embryo. The claim states that all human beings are equal and that embryos are human beings and deserve equal treatment. This does not place any greater emphasis on any one party. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research are not (from the Catholic perspective) after more protection or a greater emphasis on the embryos, they seek equality for all parties. It is the proponents of embryonic stem cell research who are placing a greater emphasis on the life of the intended recipient of the research over the embryo by stating that embryos do not deserve equal treatment as human beings for one reason or another. It may be that they do not see an embryo as a person. Or it may be that since many excess embryos are created for in vitro fertilization (and these embryos will never be given the opportunity to be brought to full term) it would be a waste not to use them to help save lives if the families who donated the embryos gave their consent for them to be used for research. These beliefs that make the embryo less than equal have a great influence on the circumstances surrounding the choice to support or conduct embryonic stem cell research. With this view in mind, the culpability of one choosing the unethical intent of conducting research that results in the destruction of an embryo is mitigated by how one interprets the intent based on an understanding that the embryo is not an equal party. And it is easy to see an embryo as not being an equal party since it is essentially a mass of cells that doesn't hold any human characteristics and doesn't have a brain, a conscience, [or] awareness of any type.
There are several factors involved in making a decision concerning ones position and action on the topic of embryonic stem cell research. The object or goal of such research can make ones position of action immoral if ones goal is pure profit or some other, less than honorable, object. Generally the object in mind is an advance in medical knowledge for the benefit and welfare of all humankind and so the object or goal of embryonic stem cell research is generally a moral and noble one. The intent or the action that leads to achieving this noble goal of increasing medical knowledge for the benefit of human kind is the research itself. Depending on the character of the research it is possible to argue that it can be done morally if the embryo is not destroyed and is treated with equal respect and the dignity that one would treat any human being. However, no matter what the goal in mind is, the ends never justifies the means. Therefore, the intentional destruction of a human embryo for the purpose of research is not justified by the possible benefits that could arise from this action. The object and the intent form the morality of embryonic stem cell research and it is possible that such research could be done morally under certain characteristics. If one chooses, however, to support or participate in research that violates the moral qualifications, the moral gravity of that decision can be mitigated by the specific circumstances or influences involved in the reaching of that decision. The fact that it is difficult to see an embryo as an equal human, combined with the fact that embryos are created for the process of in vitro fertilization, greatly influences ones decision in this matter and may reduce the moral gravity of deciding that embryonic stem cell research is morally acceptable.
Morality and ethics are difficult subjects to discuss. Christians believe in one God and in one eternal truth, Christians should ideally be ethical absolutists. An issue such as embryonic stem cell research that results in the destruction of an embryo is either right or wrong. But a Christian should also be a moral realist and recognize that the answer to an ethical question is elusive and uncertain for many. Those who have been given the gift of faith and understand Gods eternal truth in this matter, they must reject anything that compromises the dignity of human life at any stage. But they must also recognize that not everyone has the gift of faith, not everyone believes in Gods eternal truth. They, for their part, must try to educate those who do not know or believe in God on His divine truth in this matter for God has sent all who believe in Him out to spread the good news of his Gospel. In doing so one cannot force Gods truth onto anyone for that does not respect their dignity as human persons. If God desired all peoples to follow His eternal truth then He could give the gift of faith to all and force them, in a sense, to follow it by His own power. But that is not what God does. God has given humanity freedom to choose our own path and Christians must respect the freedom of those who follow a different path, often through no fault of their own. All one can do is spread the Word and to plant the seeds, they will grow on their own. One must do so by word and by example. Christians who do not do this only perpetuate the idea that the embryos is favored over the people who could benefit from the research. Christians must show them all the love of Christ so that they recognize that no one is being favored. They must be shown that Christian respect all human life equally at every stage of life and this is why Christians feel that the destruction of a human embryo is wrong no matter what the benefit of doing so may be.
Pray tell? What is the problem with "self aborted" fetuses (better known as miscarried)? I do know there is damage done to the fetus that causes the miscarriage, but ebryotic stem cells are ebryotic stem cells