| OCR Text |
Show The Science, Ethics, and Politics of Stem Cell Research Bradley Curtis favoring research on adult stem cells but is adamantly opposed to embryonic stem cell research. CARE claims that embryonic stem cell research is scientifically unnecessary. The Coalition's website contains various news clips relating successful adult stem cell treatment, and failures in embryonic stem cell research. One of the advantages of adult stem cell research cited is that the use of a patient's own adult stem cells is preferable because it avoids the problem of the body rejecting cells other than its own (Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics, n.d.). CARE's opposition to embryonic stem cell research begins with the view that the life of an individual begins at fertilization. At that point one's genetic code is complete; one is more than a "bunch of cells" or merely a "potential human being" (CARE, n.d.). From this premise they argue that there is no difference between the rights of the individual and those of the embryo. Research that results in the destruction of the embryo is seen as a form of murder. Moreover, destruction of embryonic stem cells violates existing law and policy on the state level. Homicide laws of all fifty states protect the life and dignity of every human being-especially the vulnerable. Many states specifically protect embryonic beings outside the womb. Utah law currently penalizes the killing or an "unborn child" at any stage of development. This law has also survived legal scrutiny, as in January 2002, a Utah state judge rejected a defense attorney's argument that a 14 week old fetus was not viable outside the womb, and therefore not a person (Murphy, 2003). However these laws exclude legal abortion, and discarding excess embryos from in vitro fertilization is legal. Finally CARE believes that destruction of a human embryo cannot be justified on the basis of potential long range benefits to society. CARE's mission statement contends: "Stem cell research promises great good and is a worthy scientific priority as long as we pursue it ethically. Obtaining stem cells from people without seriously harming people in the process can be ethical. However, obtaining stem cells from human embryos cannot be ethical because it necessarily involves destroying those embryos" (CARE, Mission statement 2005). A slight variation from the CARE approach contends that while the destruction of the embryo is not murder, it is seen as "reprehensible and immoral" (UCMB, 2002, p. 15). The view claims to comprehend the incredible results that stem cell research could possibly produce; yet they feel that the ends (or potential benefits) do not justify the means (the destruction of a human embryo), especially because the ends are hypothetical benefits that could possibly result in lifesav-ing medical treatments (UMCB, 2002, p. 15). Others hold that embryos do not have the same status as a fetus or a baby, thus research is permissible (UMCB, 2002, p: 16). Those favoring this position acknowledge that embryos are "not nothing," but that they do not deserve the same protection as a fetus or a baby. The rights and benefits of living individuals outweigh the embryo's rights and benefits (UMCB, 2002, p. 16) Proponents of this view believe that embryos have special properties and qualities, but these are outweighed by the potential medical advances of stem cell research that can benefit the living, (UMCB, 2002, p. 16). Perhaps the most common view held by those in favor of embryonic stem cell research is that embryos should not be created or cloned for research, but they can be used if they are surplus embryos from IVF and are going to be discarded anyway (UMCB2002, p. 16). This position can be defended using the nothing is lost principle (Outka, 2002, Para.l). This principle states: "One may directly kill when two exempting conditions are attached: 1) the innocent will die in any case; and 2) another innocent life will be saved" (Outka, 2002). Gene Outka used this principle while discussing the ethics of stem cell research before the President's Council on Bioethics in April of 2002. He argued that we can view embryos in a reproductive clinic that will either be discarded or frozen in perpetuity, as innocent lives who will die in any case (condition one of the nothing is lost principle). Further, third parties with Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, or others who could benefit from stem cell research, are seen as innocent life who will be saved by virtue of research utilizing such embryos (condition two of the nothing is lost principle) (Outka, 2002, Section 2C). Outka's extension of the "nothing is lost" principle includes embryos conceived to enhance fertility, but which will never be implanted, but it excludes embryos created exclusively for research. Outka acknowledges that excess embryos are a foreseen result of IVF, but the intention is to alleviate infertility, not to create embryos for research (Outka, 2002, Section 2C). This is an important and relevant distinction because it maintains the principle that it is wrong to create embryos only to destroy them. In the case of IVF, more embryos are made than will be implanted, but this is done to increase the chances of a successful pregnancy. If only as many embryos were created as were to be implanted, it would greatly decrease the chances of successful implantation, and it would increase the number of repeated attempts. For the time being, excess embryos are a necessary part of the IVF process. Couples can choose to freeze the excess embryos for future use, or discard them. The nothing is lost principle also answers many of the arguments previously raised by CARE; specifically that the destruction of embryos is murder. Because it is currently legal to discard excess embryos from and IVF cycle, the nothing is lost application denounces the intentional creation of embryos for research. But for embryos that would inevitably be discarded in the IVF process, less is lost because stem cells might be derived that could potentially revolutionize medical treatment. Critics of the Outka position see no distinction between using excess embryos created specifically for stem cell research and using excess embryos created during IVF treatment 18 |
