Stem cell research is a subject that has generally been absent from the current public and political debates, pushed to the backburner by issues such as the economy, the Iraq War, healthcare, and immigration. However, within the past few years, the ethical considerations of using embryonic stem cells for scientific research often made headlines, with both the advocates and opponents making emotional appeals in support of their position.
The issue is sure to again be in the spotlight. Many aspects surround the use of embryos, whether or not to use them at all, and if so, to what degree. If most politicians decide that it is ethical as they likely eventually will, the majority evidently agree that abortion is ethical, then where will the limits be drawn. Will the research findings be used to treat ailments such as spinal cord injuries and Parkinson’s Disease? Or will this be a Pandora’s Box that, when opened, can never be closed? Where will this new technology lead? Are super or designer babies on the near horizon? Will science become able to make spare human parts that are superior to the original? These and other unforeseen future scenarios present daunting questions that do not have clear answers.
Therefore, they should be seriously considered now as they will need to be answered sooner than we think. This discussion defines stem cell research and briefly outlines potential benefits and the ethical concerns official stance of varying religious
Stem cells are basically the building block cells of a human being capable of becoming 210 different types of tissue. “Stem cells have traditionally been defined as not fully differentiated yet to be any particular type of cell or tissue” (Irving, 1999). Adult stem cells are found in minute numbers within most tissues, but the majority of stem cells can be obtained from the umbilical cord. A more precise term is “somatic stem cells” (Sullivan, 2004).
There are numerous potential sources for stem cells. Embryonic stem cells originate from the inner cell of an early-stage embryo. Embryonic germ cells can be collected from fetal tissue at a later stage of development. Adult stem cells can be obtained from mature tissues. “Even after complete maturation of an organism, cells need to be replaced. A good example (of adult stem cells) is blood, but this is true for muscle and other connective tissue as well and may be true for at least some nervous system cells” (Chapman et al., 1999).
The three main objectives given for pursuing stem cell research are obtaining vital scientific information about embryonic development, curing incapacitating ailments such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, and testing new drugs instead of having to use animals (Irving, 1999). Stem cell research is also expected to aid victims of stroke, spinal cord injuries, bone diseases, and diabetes. Embryonic stem cells possess the ability to restore defective or damaged tissues, which would heal or regenerate organs that have been adversely affected by a degenerative disease. The possibilities are limitless, including greatly advancing the human lifespan because aging organs could be replenished. However, while there are many potential benefits, the potential drawbacks of science run amuck raise serious ethical considerations.
The concept of human cloning is problematic to comprehend as the physical and psychological needs, present and future, of someone produced by this method, are unknown. Societies throughout the world generally believe that human designer experiments will violate a moral barrier, taking humans into a sphere of self-engineering. In the religious community, philosophies are somewhat varied. The Mormon Church is neutral regarding stem cell research, although it opposes abortion with the possible exceptions of cases of incest, rape, or danger to the mother’s health. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations supports research but only if it entails frozen embryos that remain unused from test-tube baby labs.
Many Muslims consider that the most convincing moral argument for using embryos is that it could someday combat dread diseases. Representing Protestants, Conservative and Reform Jews, and Unitarians amongst others, The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice encourages unimpeded rights to abortion. The coalition believes the medical potential justifies research that employs the test-tube leftovers or aborted fetuses. The Catholic Church instructs its followers that ‘the life of every human being is to be respected,’ and it passionately opposes destroying embryos, whether by abortion or research. Eastern Orthodox and evangelical Protestant leaders generally concur.
The California Council of Churches, however, “supports a $3 billion state program that involves stem cell harvesting through destruction of cloned embryos” (Ostling, 2005). Some churches are more liberal than others concerning the morality of stem cell research itself, but all agree that biologically designing children with specific attributes and society engaging in the manufacture of human body parts is immoral. The vast majority of the general public and scientists as well concur.
Beyond the worst-case scenarios of stem cell research are the ethical questions regarding whether it should be allowed at all because if using embryos is considered the norm, then the broad acceptance of fetuses used for research will soon follow, a slippery slope. The moral dilemma that surrounds the prohibition of aborted fetuses for stem cell research is the idea of abortion itself. The concept of the scientific study of the next stage of development, the fetus, which resulted from abortion, is unthinkable.
The life of a human, from the time of conception, should be considered equally as viable as any individual. Consequently, the right of life, as well as the social definition regarding ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ types of deaths, should apply to potential lives, which can be described as possessing a future value of life, the same as any living person. Unnatural, premature deaths that are considered justifiable by society include those that occur during wartime, in addition to those that result from ‘mercy killings’ and the death penalty. Outside of these instances, society generally acts to protect all life, even animals that have at least a chance of future potential.
This is demonstrated by the life-saving techniques employed without question or hesitation in the case of people who wanted to end their life. Society will not allow it because it is simply wrong by any standard to end a life with potential (Manjoo, 2005).
Stem cell research is controversial, and the idea of creating super-babies is unacceptable to everyone because this unnatural style of reproduction has an overwhelming potential for decisions being made based on reasons of vanity in regard to children. The very nature of the traditional family is in danger of evolving in a strange, unknown, and undesirable direction. If society does not install limitations on this type of potentially harmful research and soon, society will pay a heavy price.
Works Cited
Chapman, Audrey; Frankel, Mark S.; & Garfinkel, Michele S. “Stem Cell Research and Applications: Monitoring the Frontiers of Biomedical Research” American Association for the Advancement of Science and Institute for Civil Society. (1999). Web.
Irving, Dianne N. “Stem Cell Research: Some Pros and Cons.” Written on request of Fr. Thomas King, S.J., Ph.D., Department of Theology, Georgetown University; President, University Faculty For Life, for their newsletter, UFL Pro-Vita, (1999).
Manjoo, Farhad. “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the Stem Cell Debate.” Salon.com. (2005). Web.
Ostling, Richard N. “A Balance of Benefits in Stem Cell Debate: Divisions Among Religious Groups Suggest Theological Thicket in Life-or-Life Questions.” Washington Post. (2005). p. B09.