The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Joel Wiens. November 8, 2001

Transcription

1 The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Joel Wiens November 8, 2001 Sue Talley, EdD ED 724 Ethics and Society Pepperdine University Graduate School of Education and Psychology

2 2 The Facts The use of embryonic stem cells is an ethical dilemma that America is facing today. Our increased technological ability to work with human gametes has enabled us to experiment on developing human life from the point of conception. As a country we are currently debating the use of embryo stem cells to research possible treatments or cures for various diseases versus the value or personhood of the embryo that was destroyed in the obtaining of such cells. During fertilization treatments for couples that cannot conceive, a woman is given drugs that cause her two produce a number of eggs. These are collected and mixed with donor sperm. Two to five days after fertilization, two to four of these fertilized ova are implanted in the mother s womb. The other fertilized ova are frozen for possible use later; however many researchers expect that all surplus embryos will be destroyed sometime in the future through natural or purposeful causes (Robinson, 2001a). There are approximately 110,000 embryos frozen in liquid nitrogen that exist in the United States. These embryos are left over from fertilization research clinics. These embryos may be newly fertilized ova only eight to sixteen cells. Other embryos may be past this stage and up to two weeks in development; these are sometimes called pre-embryos. Other embryos exist that are older than two weeks. In a process that kills the embryo, embryonic stem cells can be taken from these specimens and grown. Investigating the properties of these cells might lead to treatments or cures of diseases such as Parkinson s disease, diabetes, Tay-Sachs, Huntington s disease, Lou Gehrig s disease, heart disease, hepatitis, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, and spinal cord injuries. Treatments for arthritis alone could relieve over 18 million Americans (Okarma, 2001). Our human body contains 220 different types of cells. Scientists have developed undifferentiated embryonic stem cells into 110 different types (Robinson 2001a). Continuing research will enable scientists to learn how to develop these cells into healthy tissues and organs for transplantation into humans. Scientists don t know how the cell directs its genetics to determine cell specialization. By learning how to

3 3 direct these cells, researchers might learn means of preventing birth defects. By having a large supply of embryonic stem cells, pharmaceutical companies could develop new drugs that otherwise would not be possible (Stem Cells: A Primer, 2000). Human stem cells can also be obtained from non-embryonic sources. Stem cells have been taken from non-living fetuses, bone marrow, cadavers, umbilical cords, and human placentas. In Newly developed research, scientists at the Montreal Neurological Institute have coaxed adult stem cells located in the dermis into producing four different cell types. It is reported that stem cells from adults are hard to isolate and purify, and may decrease with age. They seem to grow slower and with less vitality compared to cells extracted from embryos. Adult stem cells that can differentiate into all cell types, an ability of embryonic stem cells, has not been found. (National Institutes of Health Guidelines, 2000). Investigators can still do unrestricted embryonic stem cell research if they do not use federal funds. Short Evaluation with Four Ethical Frameworks The consequentialist ethical framework will look for the greatest good in this situation. As we view children and adults with diseases, we are compelled to heal. Embryonic stem cells are taken from discarded embryos and are not human like visually or physiologically. They have no arms or legs, brain, heart, or consciousness. The non-consequentialist or deontological framework looks for a guiding rule or principle that can be applied in all cases. People with this view normally view human life as sacred from the point of conception. Research that destroys a human fertilized egg or embryo is killing innocent human life. I will return to the consequentialist and non-consequentialist frameworks for more thorough analysis later in this paper. The relativist recognizes that values can change depending on time and place. There are no universal, moral standards. The norms of the society determine the morality of an action. New

4 4 technologies can lead to new ethical dilemmas with no previous societal norm, thus the relativist must examine our history in deciding the value of the fertilized ovum. They must also analyze how our society has behaved when encountering new opportunities for medical discoveries. Relativists respect human life, yet have differences in opinion of when human life begins. This leads to values that vary even within a culture. If many people see the value of working toward curing diseases by using undifferentiated, fertilized egg cells, then the relativist would respect that decision. If some people believe life begins at conception, then they would be accorded respect for that decision also. One moral judgment may not be right in all cases as in what Hugh LaFollette calls situation-sensitive (LaFollette, 1991). Thus, using embryonic cells for research should be evaluated on an individual, situational, or societal basis. This framework is problematic because it uses past history to determine what is right, and stem cell research encompasses and requires new contemporary thought and knowledge. The virtue ethicist would compare virtue and vice. If an individual believed that human life began at conception, then a virtue could be saving innocent preborn life. This would influence one to argue against embryonic stem cell research. It would be a vice to destroy embryo cells in the pursuit of medical treatments for others. Contrarily, if the embryonic cells are not fully human, the ethicist could determine that healing lives of children and adults is the virtuous act. It would be wrong not to develop our knowledge and abilities in the pursuit of healing. This theory is dubious for some of the contemporary issues resulting from our new technology for individuals, and societal definitions of virtuous character traits can change (Virtue Theory, 2001). Analysis of Consequentialist and Non-Consequentialist Frameworks There are more than 100,000 unused frozen embryos in the United States. We should use them for good, rather than store them indefinitely. There are many diseases, such as cancer and diabetes, for which we may find treatments and cures if we pursue stem cell research.

5 5 Foundational in the consequentialist thought is that the fertilized ovum is not a fully realized human being, but a potential human. It has no self-awareness. Support of stem cell research will always require the support of using the pre-embryonic form to obtain stem cells. Since the embryo is not fully human or actualized, Walter Glannon states, What matters morally is preventing avoidable pain and suffering that actual people will have to experience (Glannon, 2000). Some investigators speculate that hundreds of thousands of unused embryo have been destroyed in fertility clinics. Pro-life groups appear not to be concerned with this large loss of life and yet very upset about the comparatively small number of embryos that have been destroyed to have their stem cells removed. This causes the non-consequentialists that are against stem cell research to appear hypocritical. Stem cells are obtained in the desire to help people. There is no evil intent. The guiding factor is always people s happiness. Many people believe it is better to use embryonic stem cells from a preembryo state than stem cells from an aborted embryo or fetus. They believe that it is important to consider the situation and developmental stage in which the cells were obtained. Other consequentialists argue that it is ethical to use human organs or cells, even if they were obtained in an immoral way. They agree that even though something wrong did occur, we should use the situation for the benefit of humanity; two wrongs do not make a right. The most useful cells are found in embryos. The cells in the embryo are called pluripotent because they may differentiate into any of the 220 different types of body cells. Once the embryo has matured it is difficult to obtain or coax various stem cells into the various types that will need to be studied. Stem cells from adults are hard to isolate and purify, and may decrease with age. Embryonic cells divide for long periods of time and produce more stem cells in a more easily obtained fashion than adult tissue. Embryonic stem cells have been grown into human heart cells, which have then been integrated into human heart tissue. Nerve cells were developed from embryonic stem cells which when integrated in rats helped cure a Parkinson s like disease (Robinson, 2001a).

6 6 Limiting the embryonic cells lines that can be used in federally funded research as President Bush has done may not allow enough genetic diversity for meaningful results in research. More than the currently known 72 cell lines need to be available to make allowance for people with genetic differences. The process of in-vitro fertilization is problematic to the non-consequentialist because it creates more embryos than are implanted in a woman s body. This means that developing human life will be unceremoniously stopped and frozen. This is not morally acceptable to most deontologists in this ethical framework because human life begins at conception. Freezing the embryos and stopping their life process is an uncomfortable thought. Although the final result will be life for the embryo if it is implanted and developed, stopping its development for a period of time is an act of God-like magnitude and is immoral. The great number of unused, frozen embryos lends credence to the belief that we have exceeded our moral boundaries by the creation of an icy limbo for a city s worth of future human beings. Purposely killing the embryos at a later date is equivalent to murder. When in-vitro fertilization technology developed, there were ethical concerns raised. Ethicists debated our God-like actions that created life through technical means what natural means could not accomplish. Less people now believe that the act of inducing life in a laboratory is immoral although the creation of the many extra, unused fertilized cells is still a concern to the deontologist. The fact that the creation of extra embryos that will not be implanted has diminished in the realm of popular debate does not imply acceptance. Non-consequentialists argue that is it unethical to use human organs or cells if they were obtained in an immoral way. It is never ethical to kill one person in order to save another. However, I think if the stem cells were already taken from the embryo, society would allow research if the result would spare the life of misery for a child or adult. This is the basis of President Bush s decision on stem cell research that I will mention later. However non-consequentialists would not agree to purposely, deliberately continuing the embryonic destruction to benefit others.

7 7 Experimenting with adult stem cells does not present the same moral problems as embryonic stem cell research. Obtaining adult stem cells does not require the killing of the adult as obtaining embryonic stem cells require the killing of the embryo. Non-consequentialists usually raise the examples of success in non-embryonic stem cell research. Stem cells from umbilical cord blood have been successfully integrated into brain tissue raising possibilities of neurological treatments. Cow stem cells have been developed into heart tissue. Human stem cells obtained from an adult s own bone marrow, spleen, or blood have been directed into white blood cells, which then blocked HIV growth (Smith, 2001). There is a wealth of information that can be obtained from animal and human adult stem cell experiments. Creation of a national stem-cell donor bank that makes adult stem cells more widely available is the answer to the criticisms that adult stem cells are harder to collect and purify than embryonic and that 72 stem cell lines are not diverse enough to apply to a wide variety of people. The prospect of misuse of this knowledge is great. We have already seen that as more knowledge can be gleaned from pre-birth neonatal tests, more women are aborting children for reasons of not wanting to care for a physically or mentally disabled child (Rickelle Syrdahl, personal communication, October 14, 2000). Human beings should not be manufactured or engineered for self-serving purposes. Sports Illustrated predicts our desire for athletic success will drive research toward genetically engineered athletes. Even therapeutic cloning, which offers hope to those with failing organs, can be troubling because preembryos that are created must be killed in order to clone the cells to produce an organ. Futurists predict the creation cloned spare body parts for those who want to guard against aging or disease. Is the Fertilized Ovum a Human Being? Many critics say that the debate over stem cell research is searching the wrong line of reasoning. This ethical debate will never be resolved until we move to the more important discussion of humanness of the unborn, and whether this changes from the fertilized ovum to the embryo to the fetal stage. If we can resolve the issue of personhood then the issue of embryonic research will be solved more easily. The

8 8 website religioustolerance.com provides the following five beliefs of when life becomes human life: (1) when the fetus resembles a human, (2) the point of viability when the fetus can live independently, (3) when the fetal brain develops to the point where it experiences self-awareness, (4) at birth, or (5) at some other stage of pregnancy (Robinson, 2001b). During his presidency, Bill Clinton believed, based on Genesis 2:7, that at a child s first breath, she becomes a living soul; therefore while a child is in the womb, she is not fully human. This was his reasoning when he vetoed Congress attempts to ban the partial birth abortion procedure. The research of embryonic stem cells is always closely linked to the abortion debate because of the question of embryonic or fetal self-awareness. Many people on both sides of the controversy see embryonic research as having a profound affect on the abortion debate. The question of when life human begins can be settled by science (The Visible Embryo, 1998). Biologically, the human zygote is a separate organism from the time of conception. It is genetically unique and distinct from its parents and develops according to its own genetic blueprint. It has its own blood supply. At a debate sponsored by the American Political Science Association, Dr. Robert George of Princeton University elaborated to Dr. Stanley Fish of Duke University that the best facts and logic support the pro-life position (George, 1998). Dr. Fish is best known for his claim that there is no truth, just personal preferences. During the debate, Professor Fish stood up, threw his prepared paper on the table, and said that Professor George was correct in that the scientific evidence supported the pro-life position. It was reported that the only sound at that point was 200 jaws hitting the floor. It was a defining moment in the abortion debate among the educational elite, for here was the guru of deconstructionism admitting the strength of the pro-life position (Colson, 1998). My Decision and Societal Support My position on this issue is influenced by my upbringing, my understanding of scripture and embryology, and my philosophy of God and life. I value pre-embryonic, embryonic, and fetal life as

9 9 specifically and specially created by God; and thus I must reject embryonic stem cell research that necessitates the killing of embryos. I say this realizing that others scientific and religious knowledge and convictions guide them to a different conclusion. There are non-religious reasons for not supporting embryonic stem cell harvesting. David Gushee (2001) states, Ethicist Amy Laura Hall of Duke University notes that feminist scholars such as herself believe this practice raises troubling questions about exploitative harvesting of the female body. Germany is very cautious in this area. A cautiousness attributed to its mindfulness of its Nazi past. Robinson (2001c) shows different polls showing a majority of the United States approving of stem cell research although support varies according to the wording of the questions. Although the support for research drops when people are told how the stem cells are acquired, most journalists expect embryonic stem cells research to increase in acceptance and political clout. President Bush showed the wisdom of Solomon in his decision about embryonic stem cell research. He said, As I thought through this issue, I kept returning to two fundamental questions: First, are these frozen embryos human life, and therefore, something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives? (Bush, 2001). In his remarks, Bush mentions the following two ethical frameworks that are used most often in this controversy: the non-consequentialist thought of saving human life, and the consequentialist thought of the greatest good. Both sides of the debate expressed disappointment and satisfaction with the President s decision. The fundamental reason for rejecting embryonic stem cell research is the belief that human life with its full rights and privileges begins at conception. As we learn more about developmental embryology through ultrasound and neonatal technology we realize the humanness of the pre-born. Realizing now that a heart is beating at 18 days, brain waves are present at six weeks, and the capacity to feel pain may be felt as early as 3 months have influenced legal scholars to state that if we knew in 1973 what we know now

10 10 about the unborn, the Supreme Court might not have ruled affirmatively on Roe vs. Wade. All the fertilized ovum needs to mature into a fully developed human is encoded and included inside itself. Logically it can be called an immature human. All humans mature based on his or her own internal genetics as long as it has nutrition and a safe environment. This is true inside the womb and outside the womb. Psalm 139:13-16 describes God forming a child while he or she is in the womb. The passage describes that we are fearfully and wonderfully made (New International Version) and that before we were, God knew us and ordained days after birth for us. Jeremiah 1:5 states Before I fashioned you in the womb, I knew you (New International Version). These verses indicate the vital worth of a human being that may or may not even be conceived yet. This seems to emphasize the importance of the unborn, regardless of its developmental status.

11 11 References Bush, G. (2001). Remarks by the President on Stem Cell Research. Retrieved November 11, 2001, from Colson, C. (1998). I Was Wrong. Retrieved November 8, 2001, from CC/article/0,,PTID2228 CHID CIID160879,00.html George, R. (1998). God s Reasons. Retrieved November 8, 2001, from CC/article/0,,PTID2228 CHID CIID161287,00.html Glannon, W. (2000). Genetic Screening Can Be Ethical. In J. Torr (Ed.), Genetic Engineering (pp ). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc. Gushee, D. (2001). A Matter of Life and Death. Christianity Today, 45(12), LaFollette, H. (1991). The Truth in Ethical Relativism. [Electronic Version]. Journal of Social Philosophy, 1991, National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Research Using Human Pluripotent Stem Cells. (2000). Retrieved November 8, 2001, from stemcellguidelines.htm. Okarma, T. (2001). Human Embryonic Stem Cells: A Primer on the Technology and Its Medical Applications. In S. Holland, K. Lebacqz, & L. Zoloth (Eds.), The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate (pp. 3-13). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Robinson, B. (2001a). Quotations, What Are Stem Cells? Embryos and Other Sources, Properties and Potential, Will the President s Plan Work? Retrieved November 4, 2001, from Robinson, B (2001b). Human Embryo Research. All Sides to the Disputes. Retrieved November 3, 2001, from

12 12 Robinson, B. (2001c). Ethical Concerns About Extracting Stem Cells from Embryos. Retrieved November 2, 2001,from Smith, J. (2001). The Politics of Stem Cells. The Weekly Standard 6(27), Stem Cells: A Primer. (2000). Retrieved November 9, 2001, from stemcell/primer.html. Virtue Theory. (2001). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved November 6, 2001, from The Visible Embryo. (1998). Retrieved November 1, 2001, from