Between the years 1537 and 1543, Andreas Vesalius dissected several human cadavers while a professor of anatomy at Padua. With such research he was able to expose for the first time in history the correct anatomy of the human body. There eventually developed a full and exact knowledge of anatomy, which was the first requirement for another medical development, surgery. Although it was a medical breakthrough, Vesalius’ discovery was not granted public support, nor was it supported by organized religion. Science found its way inside the human body, yet it struggled to find its way out of moral dilemmas. Many believed that dissection was an insult to the human body (Haggard 155). In fact, dissection faced much of the public skepticism that stem cell research does today. While in the midst of a potentially revolutionizing era in medical science, support was and still is superceeded by fear.
Medical science has come a long way since the time of Vesalius’ sixteenth century. Since then, scientists and doctors have revealed the machine that is the human body, and geneticists have uncovered the genes that contain our biological makeup. Just this year scientists have decoded the human genome, the complex code of life. But given our medical knowledge we aren’t yet able to conquer detrimental diseases like cancer, Parkinsons, and Alzheimers. These diseases deprive us not only of life but of our dignity as well. Many diseases result from the disruption of cellular functioning or the destruction of tissues. While we’ve known about the destruction of tissues and cells for a long time, we’ve never, until now, known of a solution.
Stem cells, we now know, offer new hope to conquering many of these diseases. In particular, embryonic stem cells offer us the best promise in curing disease and in teaching us more about the early stages of human development. These little cells may well be our biggest weapon in fighting disease. But these potential victories are not without a price, and stem cell research has come under ethical skepticism, not without good reason.
Stem cells are parent cells to all the body’s systems. They form within four days of conception and they have the ability to divide indefinitely, giving rise to cells that could conceivably develop into any differentiated cell type. That is, an embryonic stem cell has the potential to develop into any sort of cell, a blood cell, a skin cell, a kidney cell, and so on. Scientists believe they can direct these processes in the lab. Because of their massive potential, the isolation of embryonic stem cells has become what Jeffrey P. Kahn calls “the holy grail” of the human body. They’re considered essential in understanding the earliest stages of human development as well as treating many of the illnesses we cannot yet cure. But there’s a catch. In order to obtain embryonic stem cells, the embryo from which they come must be destroyed, placing an ethical cloud over their retrieval.
Because stem cell research destroys human embryos, it’s linked to the abortion debate. In both issues, the fundamental question becomes when does life begin? For those who believe life begins at a later developing time in the womb, or at birth, stem cell research isn’t much of an ethical issue. To them, an embryo is no more alive than is afterbirth, and if there can be scientific knowledge gained by its study, then why not get on with it? But for those who believe life begins at conception, the issue can be as offensive as abortion itself. Many abortion foes who feel the obligation to protect the unborn are fearful that once people realize the value of their stem cells, there will be worldwide embryonic harvesting to meet the laws of supply and demand. However unlikely this may seem, it’s not an unfounded fear.
In the century following Vesalius’s discovery of human anatomy, there arose such a curiosity among doctors about the human body that it seemed people could hardly die fast enough to meet the demand for cadavers. Criminals became profiteers in grave-robbing. Some, like William Burke and William Hare, even bypassed the boneyard all together and simply strangled their victims in order to sell cadavers to the medical field. Of course, grave robbing and cadaver exploitation was hardly an epidemic, but it seemed to be in society’s eyes. There formed a fear among the public that the evils created by science were God’s wrath for playing His part. Keeping extreme scenarios like this in mind, it’s understandable why we distrust a science that often questions our moral beliefs.
Centuries ago, medical science was unregulated and perceived as more of a threat than it is today. At first, science was an enemy to the state, lacking the trust of the superstitious and religious in society. Today, the situation is different. More value is placed on individual life. Science is no longer a threat, but an ally, protecting the lives of individuals in many ways that extend beyond medicine. It’s better regulated and more familiar to a society that has grown more secular where science is concerned. For example, many of those who believe in God believe He wants us to use science to enrich our lives. But as a society, we are still not without concern over how far science should go. Some fears stem cell research will result in incentives for abortions or that research will create a capitalistic demand for embryos, even though it’s improbable. In fact, recent NIH (National Institute of Health) guidelines prohibit payment of any kind to the donors. It also prohibits the use of federal money to destroy embryos to harvest stem cells (CNN). But this alone doesn’t solve the problem. We can’t be sure there would be no pressure to abort embryos if their cells proved useful. But neither could the physicians centuries ago assure that the study of anatomy wouldn’t result in more murders for cadavric resources. Should cadaver dissection have halted to prevent these negative results, despite the benefits of the actual study? Or should there have been strict laws governing how cadavers, or in our case, stem cells are to be obtained?
In matters of principle, the study of anatomy is no different from the study of stem cells. But there is a significant difference between the two that cannot be ignored. Stem cell research is plagued by something human dissection wasn’t. Cadavers are just that, no longer alive, while in the case of stem cell research, embryos are seen by many as a form of human life. For the purpose of this paper, let’s assume abortion foes are right and life, at least some form of potential life, begins at conception. Human embryos, therefore, are human life not fully developed, and are valuable because they have the potential to develop into human life. In order to obtain their valuable stem cells and cure diseases such as Parkinsons and Alzheimers, the embryos themselves must be destroyed. Human life, or at least the potential for human life, is destroyed. The ethical argument thus ensues. In order to save some lives, we must destroy some others.
This has led some to advocate the use of adult stem cells, which can be obtained without destroying any human life. Adult stem cells have proven to be a lot more flexible than we once thought. They also hold the advantage over embryonic stem cells in that it’s unlikely a body would reject its own cells. But they’re also more limited than their embryonic counterparts. As the NIH’s website points out, stem cells from adults have not been isolated for all tissues of the body; they’re present only in minute quantities, and the cells may contain DNA abnormalities or genetic defects that helped the patient get the disease to begin with. So embryonic stem cells hold the real treasure to scientific research. But do the ends of stem cell research, assuming it can help treat and cure disease, justify the means by which they are obtained?
A Utilitarian believer would answer in the affirmative. If the sacrifice of one human can help more than one human, then it is worth it. The more people who benefit, the better. According to Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle is the idea that actions can be judged on how well they promote human happiness to the greatest number of people. Curing Parkinsons Disease or Alzheimers by use of embryonic stem cells would certainly benefit more people than it would hurt. The number of people saved in the future may very well be immeasurable. As the NIH claims on its website, “There is almost no realm of medicine that might not be touched by this innovation.” The long term effects of stem cell research may promise a medical revolution, preventing millions from suffering. True, it would be at the expense of some, but the long term benefits would justify the practice because the sheer quantity of those who are helped would greatly surpass the number of those hurt.
Another aspect of Mill’s Utilitarianism pertains to the issue of stem cell research. When he wrote that “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied,” Mill meant there are qualitative degrees of satisfaction. If to be satisfied we’re lowered in status to that of a pig, it’s better for us to be dissatisfied humans. But it’s also implied that since a human and a pig are both alive, a human’s life is worth more than that of a pig. If pig stem cells were viable for medical science, the debate would be much simpler. But the stem cells of human embryos, because they have the potential for human life, have moral value. However, it doesn’t follow that they are all that is valuable. If there are qualitative degrees of value, as there are qualitative degrees of happiness, Utilitarianism will favor that which is more valuable. For example, a Utilitarian might value the life of a human already born more than the potential life of an embryo not yet born. The embryo’s potential for life is valuable, just not as valuable as the life its stem cells may help to save from disease.
We must also consider the arguments of another ethical philosopher, Immanual Kant. In Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant proposed that the truest virtue was that of good will, and we ought to act in ways that our actions could be universal laws. Thus, it would not be ethical to destroy a human embryo that would otherwise be born because if destroying embryos became a universal law, no one might ever survive until childbirth. Also, we’d be using the undeveloped humans as means to our own ends, ignoring their status as humans. On the other hand, using embryos that have no potential for life, such as those aborted or in excess from In Vitro Fertilization clinics, would be permissible under Kantian ethics because we wouldn’t be interfering with their destiny. Embryos are valued solely because of their potential to develop into human life. If they have no potential, they have no value, assuming they’re not being created for the sole purpose of research. We’re not using them as ends to our own means. If our actions became universal laws, only those without the potential for life would be affected. If a doctor, through use of his good will, truly wanted to help humanity by using the stem cells from an embryo that would not otherwise survive, his behavior would be both justifiable and ethical.
According to the National Institute of Health’s website, stem cells have been obtained in only in the two ways previously mentioned. In the first way, embryos were received from IVF clinics, made for purposes of reproduction but in excess of the need for infertility treatment. The second way of obtaining them was from terminated pregnancies, from fetuses aborted and destined to be discarded. In both instances the embryos in question have no potential for life, so they serve little purpose in existing. Because they lack potential for life, only these embryos should be used for research. There are plenty already available. Jeffrey P. Kahn of CNN reports in his article “Embryonic Ethics” that spare embryos from IVF clinics in the U.S. are estimated at more than 30,000, an ample amount for considerable research. The Executive Summary of Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research agrees when it says, “At the current time, cadaveric fetal tissue and embryos remaining after infertility treatment provide an adequate supply of research resources for federal research projects.” In November of 1998 President Clinton requested the National Bioethics Advisory Commission to conduct a review of stem cell research and they concluded that federal funding should be limited to two sources of material: cadaveric fetal tissue and embryos remaining after infertility treatments.
If we believe that embryos are at least potential life, the processes of In Vitro Fertilization and abortion would both be unethical because they destroy and discard embryos the same way stem cell research does. Without changing existing laws, it cannot be helped that both processes occur. Since stem cells that would otherwise be discarded have no potential for life, we’re under no ethical obligation to protect them. It’s not unreasonable to believe we ought learn something from them if we can. After all, if in battle who wouldn’t take a gun from a dead soldier to better protect his or her own life? In this way stem cells are like any other tissue or organ donated to science for the pursuit of research. The stem cells are doing the embryo little good if it never has the opportunity to develop into a human being. If it’s not going to get the chance to live, why not let it help others live, if it can?
Human life and the potential for it is sacred and ought to be preserved and protected whenever possible. The goal of medical science is to protect life, to heal and prevent disease, if at all possible. When embryos are considered life, medical science is obligated to prevent their destruction. However, if their destruction cannot be prevented, as in the case of In Vitro Fertilization and abortion, the obligation in saving lives must switch to those already living. If an Alzheimers patient can live longer because a baby never had the chance to live, the abortion will not have been in vain. The embryo will have served a pragmatic purpose in its short existence. Stem cell research should be very strictly regulated, assuring that only those embryos without the potential for life will be used for research. These embryos must only be discarded for independent reasons, not for the sole purpose of obtaining their stem cells. If research is conducted as previously mentioned, human life can be protected in two ways. Embryos on the path to development will not be harmed, and those discarded can help cure and treat medical maladies.
