President Bush stated yesterday that he will veto any congressional bill
that would allow the destruction of embryos in the name of
science. While announcing last week that he would not
support federal funding for creating human embryos for research,
the President did support use of 60 stem cell lines already in
existence.
The K-House e-News report last week discussed the promise of stem cell
research in curing degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease, cancer,
Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, and diabetes.
While the possibility of finding a way of reversing damage caused by these
diseases is alluring, there are other issues that need to be addressed.
The following are also important considerations: When does life
begin? Where do we draw the line between what is ethical and moral and
what is not? Are we sure that stem cell research will be the
promised blessing and not a curse? Part two of our report will
address these issues.
When Does Life Begin?
The debate in Congress over federal funding of embryonic stem cell research has also
wandered into some very sticky questions trying to determine when life begins. Pro-abortion advocates
have long maintained that life does not start until the baby
can survive separately from the mother. Some pro-life congressmen have gone on record as saying
that embryos created in the laboratory do not qualify as a human
life until they are implanted in the uterus. They conclude that
frozen embryos and those being grown in petri dishes are therefore acceptable for research.
Others agree with Pope John Paul II, maintaining that if an embryo has
the potential to develop into a grown human it should be protected. Yet another
view says that because an embryo can still split into two or more separate individuals up
until 14 days in the womb that it cannot have a soul
during that time.
The plethora of arguments are staggering! Where do we draw the
line?
The Slippery Dangers
The fact that there is no
clear-cut line should raise warning flags when considering this entire
issue. Whether you agree that a new embryo has a soul or
not, research on human embryos shows a lack of respect for human life,
large or small. Those in favor of the research disagree, saying that the benefits of the
research will heal people, and thus the research promotes life. However, destroying one human life to heal
another follows a "the ends justify the means" logic which is dangerous. And if doing research
on embryos is deemed okay today, what research will be justified tomorrow?
Similar issues in the past have followed the slippery slope model. For
example, when abortion was first discussed, proponents argued that it should be
allowed in cases where the health of the mother is endangered or if the woman is
a victim of rape or incest. Next the arguments moved to promote
a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. Now abortion
is available on demand at any time for any reason, including the abortion
of last trimester babies, fully capable of surviving on their own. On the other
end of the lifeline, we are moving toward euthanasia of the elderly and infirm
based on their poor "quality of life", which is an easily moveable
measuring stick with few or no boundaries.
Human life must have sanctity simply because it
is human, otherwise doors are unlocked that should not be
opened. The Netherlands leads the world in legalizing euthanasia and
assisted suicide. How long before others follow? Nazi Germany
redefined the Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, mentally disabled and others as
'subhuman' and worked to eliminate them. History has already shown us the danger
of denying the inherent value of human life.
Blessing or Curse?
Aside from moral, ethical concerns, the politicians and the scientific community may be overly optimistic about
the potential benefits of biotech therapies. A similar debate in the
German government prompted one researcher to set the record straight.
Oliver Bristle told a German newspaper, "I consider it preposterous to make
arguments based on the hopes of patients who are suffering from illnesses in
order to get their way politically." He also said that some of the
promises of cures were "not serious," and that it would take five to ten years
of research to verify the viability of such treatments.
Results reported in The New England Journal of Medicine
were alarming. A study, aimed at treating
Parkinson's disease patients with stem cells, not only failed to produce the
desired benefits, but also produced disastrous side effects. In about 15
percent of the patients, the implanted stem cell began growing too rapidly,
causing the patients to writhe and twist, jerk their heads, and fling their arms
about uncontrollably. Dr. Paul E. Greene, a neurologist, describing the
patients as follows: "They chew constantly, their fingers go up and down,
their wrists flex and distend." One of the test subjects was so badly affected
that he had to be fed intravenously. Another suffered intermittent attacks
of the condition making his speech unintelligible.
Tragically, there was no way to undo the procedure since the stem cells could
not be removed. Dr. Greene lamented, "It was tragic, catastrophic.
It's a real nightmare. And we can't selectively turn it off." His
recommendation in the report called for no more fetal transplants. "We are
absolutely and adamantly convinced that this should be considered for research
only. And whether it should be research in people is an open
question."
Conclusion
Stem cell research will most certainly continue with or without federal
funding. Not only will the research go on, but the debate regarding moral,
ethical questions will persist as well, relentlessly eroding the limits set by
well-intentioned proponents.
The field of biological engineering
is in its infancy and has forced us to address questions for which
society cannot produce definitive answers. If we allow embryos to be destroyed for
the greater good, then why waste aborted fetuses when they can be used for
research? If these forms of human life are destined to die anyway and can save
another life, then why not harvest organs from death row inmates like
the Chinese do?
Where do we ultimately draw the line?
Science cannot answer that question; it is supposed to be amoral.
Politicians do not have the answer; their opinions sway with public
opinion. And society at large does not have the answer; it
cannot subpoena God.
The absence of an answer means that mankind will stumble forward, not knowing
if in the end it will find the cures for so much suffering, or if it has opened
a Pandora's box of even more horrible consequences.
