|
Justin Chen Thought Paper #1: Debate over stem cells misses the mark Ever since President Bush’s controversial August 9th decision to provide federal funding only for research on embryonic stem cell lines created prior to that date, the media has been inundated by a flurry of rhetoric from both sides of the issue. Several conservative groups such as the Catholic Church and other pro-life organizations have maintained their strict position that embryos, which they view as potential human beings, must not be used for laboratory research. Many in the scientific establishment, however, insist that embryonic stem cells could be the deciding factor in the fight against diseases as varied as diabetes and Alzheimer’s. In a sense, then the debate up until this point has been framed as simply a novel resurfacing of the age-old conflict between utilitarian and Kantian ethics. (i) That is, the fundamental conflict which seems to underlie all the rhetoric is whether it is permissible to sacrifice a human embryo in order to maximize social and medical utility. Yet this sort of contentious philosophical rhetoric completely obscures the true dilemma at the heart of the embryonic stem cell issue. What the media—and consequently most of the country—consistently fail to realize is that the discarding of unwanted embryos at fertility clinics around the country is absolutely nothing new. As reported in an unassuming Detroit News article published at the end of August, some of these excess embryos are incinerated as medical waste, others are dumped down the sink, and some frozen embryos are simply “thawed and allowed to live out their last days—usually no more than three or four at most” (“Stem cell debate rises at fertility clinics,” 8/31/01). Sadly, none of these unsettling images of embryos being treated as nothing more than so much refuse have received the negative public outcry they clearly warrant, even in the midst of a bioethically complex debate on embryonic stem cells that by all rights should have brought such questionable practices to the fore. George W. Bush may certainly have had noble intentions in his decision to limit future research to only those embryonic stem cell lines created prior to his August 9th speech. What he and his advisors ostensibly wanted to forestall was the disturbing but very real possibility that scientists, eager to maximize their chances for making important medical breakthroughs, would actually begin manufacturing embryos for the specific purpose of harvesting their valuable pluripotent stem cells. Yet Bush’s precautions are simply irrelevant in light of fertility clinics’ common use of embryo-disposal practices such as those described above. In fact, six to fourteen embryos are created for every typical couple in order to increase the odds of one of them becoming successfully implanted. The excess embryos—all formed from the in vitro fusion of sperm and egg and still technically viable—are frozen or destroyed once they are no longer needed. The real ethical dilemma, then, lies in our country’s unresolved and frankly contradictory attitude toward these unwanted by-products of artificial fertilization. Under Bush’s new policy, the number of frozen and destroyed embryos in America will only continue to increase because fertility clinics simply have no other use for them. Louisiana is the only state that defines these unwanted embryos as potential human beings and forbids their destruction. But even if the embryos are not incinerated or flushed down the drain, they are at best placed in freezers to await the extremely unlikely prospect of future adoption. More than likely, those embryos will never again see the light of day. The situation just described can be nothing short of deplorable for both Kantians and utilitarians alike. To someone who believe in the inviolability of an autonomous being, both the discarding and the sequestering of countless embryos is akin to state-sanctioned mass abortion. And to one who sees the promise of countless medical breakthroughs locked away in those tiny but amazingly versatile stem cells, the government’s injunction against the use of embryos for the production of future cultures presents a frustrating—perhaps even ethically unjustifiable—roadblock to scientific progress. The U.S. clearly requires a great deal of future insight and contemplation to sort out its views on the acceptability of embryo use in scientific research. But for the moment at least, Americans seem to fall slightly on the side of utilitarianism. After all, fertility clinics do not currently face reprisals for their almost callous disposal of excess embryos, perhaps because of a subtle but widespread utilitarian justification that the immense benefits derived from the creation of a human life by an otherwise infertile couple outweigh any associated negative consequences. Furthermore, as the noted biomedical ethicist and author James Childress has pointed out, Americans are already accustomed to the notion of a certain “medical utility”—e.g. with regards to the allocation of scarce organs, in which patients who are most likely to thrive after the transplantation are favored over those whose prognosis is less promising. Granted this is not as stark or difficult an example as the use of embryos in stem cell research, but it nevertheless appears that realistically speaking, our country is willing to weight predicted outcomes alongside more strictly deontological considerations. Given America’s de facto utilitarianism, President Bush’s proposal is not only irrelevant for the welfare of embryos, but also detrimental to scientific progress itself. The current consensus among researchers is that both the number and the quality of extant stem cell lines are highly dubious, and furthermore, access to some of those lines could be almost impossible to obtain. Dr. Diane Krause, Associate Professor of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology at the Yale School of Medicine who testified before the Senate about the importance of embryonic stem cell research, noted in a recent interview that the 60 cell lines promised by Bush “may or may not be legit and sterile and capable of making every cell in the body” (“Facing the limits of stem cell research,” The Yale Herald, 9/7/01). In light of these concerns about the viability of the embryonic stem cell colonies established before August 9th, it becomes all the more imperative that America resolve its inconsistent stance once and for all. It is simply unacceptable that embryos can legally be manufactured and discarded in 49 states to aid infertile couples in conceiving a child, but that those same unwanted embryos cannot be used to generate stem cell lines with the potential to eradicate a host of diseases and save untold human lives. Furthermore, the current state of confusion essentially shuts out powerful research institutions such as Yale and Princeton from the race for cures, simply because they never established embryonic stem cell colonies of their own before the essentially arbitrary cutoff date. It’s clear that the talking heads on both sides of the embryonic stem cell research debate must drop the empty rhetoric and recognize what’s truly at stake here. The dilemma is not simply that of utility versus deontology, the potential for scientific breakthrough versus the sanctity of life. America must examine its own policies and hypocrisies regarding embryonic production and destruction and come to a conclusion about the proper use of human embryos in scientific experimentation. Until we do so, valuable time and medical resources will continue to be squandered in an attempt to uphold a set of artificial and contradictory policies.
Note to Professor Baum: I am aware that terms such as “Kantianism” and “utilitarianism” would not ordinarily be thrown about in an op-ed piece from, say, the New York Times. However, since we covered these issues in class, I felt they were fair game for this assignment, especially since I would prefer to articulate a complete argument rather than conform to a particular journalistic format. I guess you just have to imagine this article appearing in a philosophical or religious magazine where such terms are a little more commonplace. |