Stem Cell Research, Morality, and Law

A paper presented to the Oxford Society of Scholars Forum by Rollin A. Van Broekhoven, JD, LLM, DPhil, DLitt, DPS 29 September 2001

INTRODUCTION

In 1729, when the Irish were crushed by poverty, thanks to the brutal economic policies of their English overlords, Jonathan Swift the conservative Irish clergyman who became the worlds greatest satirist wrote up A Modest Proposal. In deadpan prose and in a kindly benevolent style, he suggested that Irish babies be sold for food. That way, he argued, there would be both more food to go around and fewer mouths to feed. Besides, baby skin would make a really soft leather, making possible a new industry that would create jobs and boost the Irish economy.

Swift, the Christian pastor, was lampooning the moral utilitarianism of the Enlightenment, which taught that anything could be morally justified if it were useful giving the greatest tangible benefit to the greatest number. Swift showed where this kind of thinking, if pursued logically, would lead. Indeed, his A Modest Proposal did wake up the conscience of a good number of his readers, who realized that no noble social end could possibly justify the consumption of babies, and no moral philosophy that could justify such a thing could possibly be valid.

...Thinking about moral issues in utilitarian terms has become so ingrained that many Americans are unable to think in any other terms. If something no matter how reprehensible has a positive outcome, it must be okay.1

This paper addresses issues concerning the utilization of human embryonic stem cells in research. Although research also involves adult stem cells, such research does not at the present confront society with the same ethical and legal issues present in human embryonic stem cell research. Two great questions confront the human race at the start of this biotech century.2 The first is whether we should use members of our own kind, namely, Homo Sapiens, in whatever stage of biological existence, for the purpose that is other than the good of the individual concerned. The second, perhaps only in the horizons of our thinking, is whether we should use our growing capacity to design, determine, and transform ourselves and our nature, toward a so-called post-human future.3 What is at stake is societys understanding of what it means to be human. Nevertheless, underlying consideration of this subject are the following questions: If a procedure or process is scientifically or technologically feasible, is it, or should it be morally permissible, or at least be regarded as morally neutral?4 If it is morally permissible or neutral, is it, or should it be legally permissible? For many of us, these questions are intensely personal as we deal with bioethical end of life or incurable disease issues in our own families.

The relation of the natural sciences and morality and religion and law is one of the most fascinating, challenging, controversial, and potentially enriching studies possible in contemporary Western life. At its broadest and most general meaning, science is knowledge that is accumulated, systematized, and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws. At this level, a distinction must be made between the natural or physical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, or biology, and the normative sciences, such as the social sciences. A more specific definition of the natural science may be that it is any systematic field of study or body of knowledge that aims, through experimentation, observation and deduction to produce a reliable explanation of phenomena with reference to the material or physical world.5 Philosophy of science deals, in very general terms, with the philosophical issues associated with the natural sciences.6

The natural sciences tended to be neutral towards religion. They did not require prior or consequent acceptance or rejection of any religious beliefs. As a result, most natural scientists assume that considerations of divine influence upon or involvement within natural order are largely irrelevant to the specific task searching for a natural explanation to patterns observed in nature. A significant philosophical distinction important to understanding the development of the natural sciences concerns rationalism and empiricism.7

On the one hand, rationalism with its emphasis on reason and view that all truth has its origins in human thought, unaided by any form of supernatural intervention or appeal to the experience of the senses, promoted the view that certain truths were universal and necessary. The alternative to rationalism, on the other hand, was an appeal to experience, generally known as empiricism. The issue emerging from the debate between rationalism and empiricism is whether certain truths (assuming there is such a thing as truth) are a priori or a posteriori. The same debate exists in religion and in moral thought, namely is the knowledge of God a priori, implanted there by God, or a posteriori, derived by reflection on experience or divine revelation. How one approaches the question of the morality of stem cell research is in large measure derived from ones a priori understanding of the nature of God and His commands, or ones a posteriori understanding of God based on ones experiences, including experience with God.

Where once there was a dialogue between religion and science, with certain shared assumptions, now there is a growing sense of conflict between religion and science. While the nature and the reasons for this conflict are beyond the scope of this paper, there are four considerations that may be noted that reflect the growing realization of insecurity in the inherited assumptions on which prior prevailing understandings rested.8 These include: the cultural shift reflected in the rise of postmodernism; the growing dissatisfaction with philosophical foundationalism; the influence of the negative direction of the conflict models and imageries; and the tendency to perpetuate outdated and misleading stereotypes often dependent upon incorrect assumptions, findings, and assertions in earlier works.9

View post:
Stem Cell Research, Morality, and Law