The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Finding Common …

Russell T. Daley, Graduate Student, California State University, Long Beach December 13, 2000

presented to: Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics Ohio University April 28, 2001

This research is of such fundamental importance that all responsible citizens should be aware of its implications. Dr. Shirley J. Wright, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Biology, University of Dayton:

INTRODUCTION

Biomedical sciences are progressing at staggering rate. This fact is no more evident than in the burgeoning field of stem cell research where therapeutic applications such as tissue and organ transplantation are being developed. These therapies have the potential to save millions of lives and greatly reduce human suffering. The ethical dilemma lies in the fact that much of the research requires the destruction of human embryos. Unfortunately, when faced with such choices, our standard ethical frameworks seem to demand opposing and intractable positions. The goal of this paper is to find a common ground from which we as a society may reasonably and faithfully deliberate about embryonic stem (ES) cell research. In the paper I will (1) identify and evaluate the main arguments both for and against this research, (2) explore the central question of moral status, (3) consider the application of Mary Anne Warrens multi-criterial approach to the moral status of the embryo, and (4) offer some initial policy recommendations.

In order to arrive at any conclusions which hold the hope of widespread support, the nature of this discussion requires a careful accounting of disparate views and a respectful handling of the sometimes emotionally charged responses. Sadly the current public debate on this topic has become more of a political process than a philosophical one. Notwithstanding the valiant efforts of some of the best minds in our country and abroad, as represented in the National Institute of Health (NIH), the Presidents National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), and the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) Hearings, the ethical divide seems unbridgeable. While the NBACs reportto President Clinton is complex in its recommendations and subtle in its reasoning, I believe the NBAC stops short of providing clear direction for the future. Not only does the NBAC offer an incomplete defense of its position, but in some respects it seems to have fallen prey to the political process and not offered recommendations which are true to the hearts and minds of the participants. This deficiency reflects the difficulty suggested by Kevin Wildes, of creating ethically sensitive public policy in a society that is secular and morally pluralistic. Based on this challenge, it must be accepted that no matter what decision is made some persons will not agree. We should recognize in this process that not all religious or philosophical values will be realized in a pluralistic society. Rawls says, There is no social world without loss: that is, no social world that does not exclude some ways of life that realize in special ways certain fundamental values.

BREAKING THE STALEMATE

It should be recognized that much of the recent debate over ES cell research has focused on the use of ES cells collected from cadaveric fetal tissue and unused IVF embryos. Attempts by philosophers, lawyers, and scientists alike to justify ES cell research have centered on issues such as lack of complicity with abortion or the best use of unwanted materials. However, these attempts have not answered the critics of ES cell research and have left us in an ethical stalemate. John Robertson and the NBAC stop their arguments at the point of non-complicity because they believe that they have justified the immediate concerns of this research and answered the critics. They choose to address only the less problematicsources for ES cell research, however, in doing so they avoid the deeper debate and fail to set a direction for the future. How can we bridge the divide? First, we must seek to reduce some of the distorting power of the fears and prejudices that surround this debate. This can be done by gaining a common understanding and usage of such terms as human being, person, right to life, and even embryo. I contend that these terms can be sorted out within the context of a framework for moral status and our answers to the ethical dilemma presented by ES cell research will turn on the question of how we ought to understand the moral status of the embryo. Thus, I intend to focus my attention on the deeper problem: What is the moral status of the embryo, and how is it to be weighed against other relevant concerns?

THE STANDARD ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES

The main argument for ES cell research is that it will reduce human suffering and promote human well being, or the common good, by curing or eliminating many illnesses. The debilitating effects of such diseases as diabetes, Parkinsons, and Alzheimers (to mention only a few) may potentially be eradicated through the therapeutic applications offered by ES cell research. ES cell research is touted by many to be the most probable and quickest way to attain these therapies due to the undifferentiated nature of the stem cells as well as the ability of ES cells to overcome immunological concerns. Thus, it is research with ES cells versus adult cells which should be pursued. Any harms caused by the destruction of human embryos will be outweighed by the goods attained in the relief of human suffering. However, social utility is not always a sufficient grounding to justify actions. Except for hard-line, classical utilitarians, most agree that there are some moral constraints on the promotion of the common good. Issues such as justice, human rights, or respect for persons often mitigate social utility.

Original post:
The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Finding Common ...