Biotechnology and Ethics: The Stem Cell Debate
Part Four
Chapter 3 of Monitoring Stem Cell Research covers current and past law and policy involving, among other issues, embryonic stem cell research. Please read that chapter.
In 1979 until 1993 federal funding was not offered for research on embryonic stem cells. In 1993 the issue was revisited, and President Clinton ordered that embryo creation for research should not be funded, but he opened the way for research involving embryos already created, mainly for use in infertility treatment. But in 1995, Congress prohibited the use of federal funds for research that destroys or endangers human embryos, or creates them for research purposes. This is known as the “Dickey Amendment.” See p. 25 of the Report for the language of the Dickey Amendment. The law, in effect, prohibits using federal funds for destruction of embryos, but it does not prohibit the use of private funds. This amendment is interpreted in a way that does not prohibit the use of embryos already destroyed.
The fact that the Dickey Amendment does not prohibit the use of already destroyed embryos opened the way for President Bush’s policy, permitting government funding of research involving the use of embryonic stem cell lines created before August 2001.
President Bush’s policy was designed as a compromise. It is meant as a way to allow for research but yet not to encourage destruction of embryos.
One problem with Bush’s policy, frequently point out by critics, is the number and quality of then existing stem cell lines is very limited, more than first thought.
See pp. 41 – 43 for an examination of “available” stem cell lines. Quality problems are pointed out on pp. 116 – 121.
Although Bush’s policy does not prohibit private funding of stem cell research, the limitations on the use of the huge funds available from the government place serious actual limits on embryonic stem cell research.
Also, the quality of then existing stem cell lines may negatively impact research.
Many people believe that Bush’s policy does not go far enough. They believe that a compromise is possible that does is not limited by using existing stem cell lines.
Many embryos are currently used for in vitro fertilization. More embryos are collected than are typically used. They are then frozen, with extra embryos typically destined for destruction.
Proponents of stem cell research argue that since embryos will be destroyed regardless of government funding, research using them, even though it means their destruction, should be permitted.
Is this a utilitarian argument or could it be a deontological argument?
Utilitarian.
(Utilitarians would probably argue in this way. But whether deontologists would also accept the argument partly depends on their attitudes toward the early days of embryos. Many deontologists would reject that idea that an early collection of cells is a human being, or anything that deserves special respect. Such deontologists would also accept this argument. Other deontologists who believe that the embryo, from the earliest days, is a person, might reject the position, claiming that it improperly benefits from or perhaps promotes destruction of embryos.)
Possibly deontological.
(While utilitarians would probably argue in this way, answering about deontologists is more complex. Their position would partly depend on their attitudes toward the early days of embryos. Many deontologists would reject that idea that an early collection of cells is a human being, or anything that deserves special respect. Such deontologists would also accept this argument. Other deontologists who believe that the embryo, from the earliest days, is a person, might reject the position, claiming that it improperly benefits from or perhaps promotes destruction of embryos.)
As we go through various moral arguments, be sure you carefully evaluate them and come to your own conclusions.
What are the moral arguments against using embryos that are already destined for destruction?
One argument is that this would encourage and implicitly approve of the creation of embryos, some of which are destined for destruction.
Another argument is that by accepting benefits from the destruction of embryos one condones and participates in the violation of a moral rule against killing
Clearly, these are deontological arguments. They depend on both the rule that it is wrong to destroy embryos even in the earliest stages of development and a rule that it is wrong to purposely benefit from the violation of acceptable moral rules.
Audio. The deontological argument against embryonic stem cell research sometimes goes beyond the idea that an embryo, at a very early stage, is a human being. It also might include the idea that it is at least a potential human being.
Suppose one does not believe that an embryo is a person or human life. Would that automatically mean that destruction of embryos for stem cell research is morally acceptable, from a deontological point of view?
Actually, there is another perspective that is brought into the debate. Some people reject the idea that the embryo is a human being, yet the embryo might still deserve special respect.
Some people think of the embryo as “life-in-progress”, a sort of mystery being. In this way it should be accepted as covered by rules against killing so as to avoid killing if it is human life.
Others believe that the embryo is nascent life, something on the way to being a human being even if not there yet. Due to the fact that we all began that way, and to the clear potential for human life that the embryo has, it is thought by some people to be covered by rules against killing.