September 03, 2010

Many of us know one or two of the warning signs of heart attack, but few know all the symptoms or have a clear idea of what them. More >

Would you like to ask our staff a question? >

Join the discussion and leave a comment on this article >

The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Maxwell J. Mehlman, J.D.

Numerous researchers tout the potential therapeutic benefits from human embryonic stem cells. Critics object to the fact that, in order to obtain stem cells, the embryos must be destroyed. This article presents an overview of the conflicting ethical arguments in favor of and against embryonic stem cell research.

Basic Scientific Facts

The inner cell mass of the human blastocyst consists of undifferentiated cells known as stem cells. These cells are pluripotent, that is, they have the potential to develop into any type of human tissue. The objective of embryonic stem cell research is to extract these cells and coax them into developing in such a way that they can be used to repair or replace damaged tissues and organs. In the course of extraction, the blastocyst is destroyed. (Technically, stem cells are extracted from blastocysts rather than from embryos, since the term "embryo" applies to a later stage of development, but in the debate over stem cell research, the term "embryonic stem cells" seems to be preferred.)

Some commentators, including a few bioethicists, believe that blastocysts are persons with full rights of personhood. Indeed, others believe that personhood begins at the moment of conception, when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, either naturally or through in vitro fertilization.

Kant's Categorical Imperative

There are two major schools of thought in moral philosophy - deontological and consequentialist. The deontological approach is exemplified by Immanuel Kant's principle of the Categorical Imperative, which says that persons must be treated as ends rather than as means. This leads to the belief that individuals fhave certain inalienable rights, as embodied in the famous statement in the Declaration of Independence that all people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [sic] rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." In practice, this means that a person's life cannot be sacrificed to achieve some greater good. (Among other things, this raises an interesting question about the morality of conscription during wartime.)

The View That Blastocysts Are Persons

Are human blastocysts covered by the Categorical Imperative? Do they have what ethicists call "rights of personhood"? Put simply, are they "persons"?

Some commentators, including a few bioethicists, believe that blastocysts are persons with full rights of personhood. Indeed, others believe that personhood begins at the moment of conception, when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, either naturally or through in vitro fertilization.

For example, Richard Doerflinger, Deputy Director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, testified before Congress in 2004: Every human life, from the first moment of existence until natural death, deserves our respect and protection. Human life has intrinsic dignity, not only a relative or instrumental value; thus every living member of the human species, including the human embryo, must be treated with the respect due to a human person. [emphasis in original](1)

Edmund Pellegrino, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Medicine and Medical Ethics at the Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at Georgetown University, and the new chair (2005) of President Bush's Council on Bioethics, similarly told President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Committee:

In the Roman Catholic view [which Pellegrino shares], human life is a continuum from the one cell stage to death. At every stage, human life has dignity and merits protection. Upon conception, the biological and ontological individuality of a human being is established. Human development unfolds in an orderly way, and each stage of that development must be treated as an end in itself, not as a means to other ends, however useful they might be to others.(2)

If blastocysts are "persons," then four questions arise. First, is it ethical to create blastocysts solely for the purpose of destroying them in order to obtain stem cells? Those who subscribe to the deontological way of thinking and who regard blastocysts as persons clearly say "no."

The second question that arises if blastocysts are considered persons concerns the fact that, during the process of in vitro fertilization (IVF), many extra embryos are created that will not be implanted into the uterus and allowed to mature.

Is it ethical to destroy these so-called "spare embryos" to obtain stem cells? In a 1999 report, President Clinton's bioethics commission, called the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), said yes. (For the commission's full report, see http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nbac/stemcell.pdf).

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >

NOTE: We regret that we cannot answer personal medical questions.

No comments have been made

View More Features >

The Doctor Will See You Now |

LEGAL RESTRICTIONS AND TERMS OF USE OF THIS SITE. USE OF THIS SITE IS YOUR AGREEMENT TO THESE TERMS.
Copyright 2010 interMDnet Corporation. All rights reserved.
About Us | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | System Requirements