- Many people say that "now we are basing our decisions on science rather than religion." The truth is, nothing about the science of a human embryo can tell you whether you ought to destroy it for some benefit. Only ethical guidelines (which are based on religion for many people) can tell you that.
- When people say that embryonic stem cell research does not imply cloning, they are misinformed. My friend's medical textbook explains: we don't just want any old stem cells, we want stem cells that are a genetic match for the person undergoing the treatment. Which implies that we need to create an embryo with the genetically identical stem cells. Which means we need to clone the person undergoing the treatment.
- There are many people who have diabetes, spinal cord injuries, etc. who do not want their diseases treated with embryonic stem cells. These people are never interviewed on the radio for programs about embryonic stem cells.
- The president's decree today rescinds another order of President Bush which encourages funding for non-embryonic stem cell research. This seems unnecessary, and backwards, since these stem cells have actually been useful against disease.
- I can't believe that the same people who are against genetically modified food are so in favor of genetically modified people. Cloned animals have a much higher rate of birth defects, for example. We really don't know what we are getting into.
Was this letting religion trump science? No, it was respect for human beings and their rights. A created human embryo is a potential human being---an individual human. Does it have value? Science can't answer. For goodness sake, YOU were once an embryo.
Sigh. My friend the pathologist's objection is that there is no guarantee that we would stop at an embryo. What if a blastocyst were more useful? What about aborted fetuses? What about a 15 week old fetus? It would be much easier to get liver cells from a cloned liver. People will say that no one is arguing for this, but it is also true that the arguments in favor of ESCR have nothing to say against using more developed human babies for "parts".
There is much more to be said, but it has been mostly said well on stand to reason (str.typepad.com/blog) and thinkingchristian.net.
2 comments:
Hey mathmom,
I found this blog. I hope you don't mind. I always appreciate your viewpoint and though we often don't agree, I like to think we can discuss things in a reasoned way. I'm writing here in hopes of explaining how I think about things.
For basic research, cloning is not needed. Significant research has been done with the limited number of cell lines we've had while the ban was in place, using only a handful of cell lines. But given the restrictions on funding, most labs couldn't use those existing cell lines. Even if no new cell lines were made, lifting the restriction on funding would mean that we could make full use of those existing cells. At the same time that work on stem cells is being done, work on being able to use that research medically without needing embryonic stem cells is being developed. (I too think it's too bad that obama removed language encouraging that work). Remember that not all science is direct medical science.
As to the ethical question - whether we *should* do the work - scientists aren't in a better position to answer that than anyone else, and if scientists are permitted to use their "expert hat" to answer ethical questions, then that is a mistake (often one prompted by someone having them on their TV/radio show and asking them for their opinion on the ethics). But it's important not to think of them as unethical people, either. They are just part of this larger conversation we all have to have about what is an acceptable cost.
The slippery slope argument is one used often to predict the erosion of values from some small step. It is, itself, a slippery slope, and possible to be overextended - it has been used to imply that if gay marriage is allowed people will next want to marry their pets, for example. Predicting that if people allow the US to continue research that it will result in embryos being used to treat people who don't want such treatment, or that more embryos will be destroyed (rather than, say less, if it results in more basic research on stem cells that results in an ability to eventually avoid their medical use altogether) is difficult.
I expect that this is one reason why people against genetically modified foods are not against genetically modified people - we have one, we don't have the other. And no one's going to force you to use stem-cell related treatment, whereas it can be very difficult to avoid genetically modified food.
I remember hearing about the artificial blood case. Perhaps it's clear that we should never allow artificial blood to be tried in humans. Maybe we never should have tried it in animals - that would be another place to draw the line. Or is it just immoral because these people hadn't consented? That seems more likely the line that you're drawing, which I agree with. But imagine someone who is dying, who cannot get real blood, but who could get the artificial blood. They cannot consent and so they're going to die. We can't know whether they would consent, so giving it to them is unethical. But not giving it to them doesn't necessarily do them any favors. The point is that where ethics and human life intersect many people take different lines on what is ethical, and ethics itself is complicated. Otherwise meta-ethics wouldn't exist as a philosophical discipline I guess.
Anyway, this may be another reason some people are against genetically modified food and not genetically modified humans - they may assume that the only time they'd get such a treatment is when their life was in danger anyway, and they think possibly not dying would be the better option in that case. (By the way, the blood substitute has since been shown to be unsafe and result in higher death rates than the real thing).
Of course, it's important to take a stand for what you believe in. Deciding where to stop in science is difficult - every experiment could bring more knowledge, or a better tool. We are a lot better about not doing horrific experiments now - the things humans did (and we benefit from!) in the 18th and 19th century would make us all sick. So it's important to discuss and agree on what's allowable.
Anyway, I have to go now. Thanks for letting use your blog as a place to ramble.
Hey Dave! Thanks for commenting. I use this blog to get the political reactions I have out of my head, without having to tell Michael about them... But I feel like it is really rough in spots, not always cleanly argued or organized, and pretty personal. (Hmm, stories about my kids are less personal? Hmm, better think about this).
Mostly I've seen other blogs where people are attacked for their viewpoints, sometimes rationally, and sometimes not, and I don't want to subject myself to that kind of treatment. Since you won't do that (even when we disagree) you're welcome to comment. It is more interesting to discuss something with someone you disagree with, anyway.
That said, I think we agree on most of the basics with this one, if not the conclusion.
The blood example was just one to say that we often use ethical (i.e., not scientific) guidelines to determine what kind of research gets done, and the implication that we should not was one thing that bugged me about Obama's speech.
The slippery slopes you mention in regard to ESCR don't bother me. My friend the pathologist's argument (we'll eventually take cells from more developed humans and destroy them---blastocysts and the like) doesn't even really bother me. What bothers me is the idea of creating a genetically identical embryo to the person being treated and using those stem cells. The thing is, this isn't even a slippery slope: when talking about the possible medical benefits of embryonic stem cell research, this is the end game, the destination.
I think you know my friend the pathologist =) It can be amusing to get her started talking about this subject, she can get pretty passionate.
Ramble away. If you have another topic you want to ramble on, let me know =)
Post a Comment