EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS AND BABIES, THE EXPERIMENTATION ON HUMANS Introduction Stem cells are biological cells found

in all multicellular organisms, that can divide through mitosis and differentiate into diverse specialized cell types and can self renew to produce more stem cells. In mammals, there are two broad types of stem cells: embryonic stem cells that are isolated from the inner cell mass of blastocysts, and adult stem cells that are found in various tissues. In adult organisms, stem cells and progenitor cells act as a repair system for the body, replenished in adult tissues. In a developing embryo, stem cells can differentiate into all the specialized cells, but also maintain the normal turnover of regenerative organs, such as blood, skin, or intestinal tissues. Simply put, stem cells are blank cells which can become all 210 different kinds of human tissue. Researchers hope that someday these cells could provide cures for all kinds of serious diseases, even repairing vital organs. We have stem cells throughout our bodies, but they are most abundant in human embryos. To get embryonic stem cells, however, requires killing those human beings. The stem cell debate is about the value of human life at its beginning. The discovery, isolation, and culturing of human embryonic stem cells has been described as one of the most significant breakthroughs in biomedicine of the century (The American Academy for the Advancement of Science, 2001). This description would be warranted by virtue of the biological uniqueness of these cells alonetheir ability to self-renew infinitely while retaining a remarkable capacity to differentiate into any form of cell tissue. But as well as this, the culturing of embryonic stem cells holds tremendous potential for the development of new forms of regenerative medicine to treat debilitating or fatal conditions that would not otherwise be curable (Savulescu, 2000). Many influential groups have taken sides in the debate. You can guess where the pro-abortion groups stand (to find a positive justification for abortion is their dream come true!). Drug and research companies also defend destructive embryonic stem cell research. Pro-life groups, of course, are against it. The Vatican condemned research using human embryos as "gravely immoral," because removing cells kills an unborn child. The Roman Catholic 1

church teaches that life begins at conception and must be safeguarded from that point. It encouraged the use of cells from adults instead of embryos, which it called `the more reasonable and humane step. Ultimately, what lies at the heart of this debate is our view of the human embryo. The central question in this debate is simple: Is the human embryo a person or a piece of property? If unborn persons are living beings, they have dignity and worth, and they deserve protection under the law from harm and destruction. If, however, unborn persons are a piece of property, then they can be destroyed with the consent of their owner. It is somewhat of an irony that the discovery of cells with such a tremendous potential for improving and prolonging our own lives, should bring with it some of the most trenchant and intractable questions about the value of life itself. The harvesting of embryonic stem cells results in the destruction of the embryos from which they are harvested. It results, in other words, in the expiration of the very beginnings of a possible human life. Issues about the value of life emerge here in perhaps their most stark and poignant form in the question of whether life for those already existing should be improved at the seeming expense of a possible human life that has just come into being. ETHICAL PROBLEMS The Basic Ethical Problem The possibility of destructive embryo research, particularly embryonic stem cell research, presents us with a moral problem because it appears to bring into tension two fundamental moral principles that we esteem very highly: one principle enjoins the prevention or alleviation of suffering, and the other enjoins us to respect the value of human life. As noted, the harvesting and culturing of embryonic stem cells has considerable potential to bring about remarkable potential benefits in the way of alleviating debilitating medical conditions. So, it satisfies the first principle to a very great degree. On the other hand, there is a case to be made that the harvesting of human embryonic stem cells violates the second principle in that it results in the destruction of human life with value (i.e. human embryos). Accordingly, both principles apparently cannot simultaneously be respected in the case of 2

embryonic stem cell research. The question then is which principle ought to be given precedence in this conflict situation. Should we give more weight to the first, and permit destructive embryonic stem cell research because of its remarkable potential benefits? Or should we give more weight to the second, and prohibit destructive embryonic research because it violates respect for the value of the embryo as the very beginnings of a possible human life? This, at bottom, is the ethical problem generated by destructive embryo research. Crude as it may sound, responding to this problem calls for a moral calculation a decision about how the positive value of destructive embryo research is to be weighted, from a moral point of view, in comparison to the negative value (or disvalue) of destroying embryos. Whatever way that calculation is done, it is important to get a clear idea of what moral weight each side of the equation has. This will involve: (i) developing a sound and accurate picture of what the real value is of the benefits of embryonic research, (ii) clarifying what the value of embryos might consist in, and what, if anything, may be wrong with destroying them. Evaluating the Benefits of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Evaluating the beneficial consequences of embryonic stem cell research is not straightforward. There are complexities associated with assessing how realistic the potential of the benefits is, how alternatives with different combinations of benefits and drawbacks are to be compared, and factoring in all of the sometimes overlooked possible consequences of embryonic research. Most attention has centred on the medical potential of embryonic stem cell research and cultivation, particularly somatic gene therapy for genetic disorders, and the generation of replacement tissues and organs for transplant. There is no doubt that these outcomes, once realised, would be highly valuable. It is important to keep in mind, however, that currently these benefits are potential ones. A sound evaluation of stem cell research needs to take account of the likelihood of achieving its beneficial outcomes. In matters of science, and particularly, in areas that are newly developing and comparatively uncharted (such as embryonic stem cell research), it is 3

sometimes difficult to settle on those probabilities with complete confidence. It is the nature of scientific discoveries and progress, that they are not easily predicted. Both advances and impediments to advancement can arise unexpectedly. This uncertainty about how real the potential benefits are, needs to be kept in mind when weighing and evaluating the consequences of embryonic stem cell research. Taking into Account all of the Relevant Benefits and Harms The embryonic stem cell debate has been pre-occupied with the biological and medical benefits or drawbacks of that research. Central as these certainly are, there are nonetheless other, often-overlooked non-medical impacts that may be important to factor in. Some of the major among these are possible social impacts including: De-sensitisation to the Destruction of Human Life It is argued by some10 that allowing the destruction of embryos to become an entrenched practice would serve to desensitise the scientific establishment, regulating bodies, and society in general, to the destruction of life in general. An increased social toleration of loss of life, it would be argued, may make it easier for society to accede to (currently) more controversial practices involving the ending of life such as, late term elective abortion, or withdrawal of treatment for severely disabled infants, for example. This 'slippery slope' argument about potential consequences is based on empirical assumptions about the causes and effects of certain social attitudes, and needs to be assessed in the light of their plausibility.

Contributions to Social Oppression One strong but minority strand of argument emphasises the impact that biotechnology has on broader social relationships. It has been argued that 'research should be evaluated not only in terms of its effects on the subjects of the experiment but also in terms of its connection with existing patterns of oppression and domination in society' (Sherwin, 1992). There is a considerable body of writing that explores the impacts of new reproductive technologies 4

(such as IVF) on the interests of women, particularly how those technologies might contribute to oppression (Warren, 1998). In the case of embryonic research, it is sometimes argued that women who donate ova or embryos are at risk of exploitation to the extent that male-dominated medical practice appropriates their reproductive labour for research and commercial benefits. Women are at risk, therefore, of being alienated from their reproductive labour. Moreover, it is argued that women's body parts are at risk of being commodified, and their acts of altruistic donation demeaned, if downstream users can develop commercial applications for stem cells developed from their ova and embryos (Dickenson 2001 and Holland 2001). Ethical Questions The first ethical problem, which is fundamental, is: Is it morally licit to produce and/or use living human embryos for the preparation of ES cells? The answer is negative, for the following reasons: 1. On the basis of a complete biological analysis, the living human embryo is from the moment of the union of the gametes - a human subject with a well defined identity, which from that point begins its own coordinated, continuous and gradual development, such that at no later stage can it be considered as a simple mass of cells (Serra and Colombo, 1998). 2. From this it follows that as a human individual" it has the right to its own life; and therefore every intervention which is not in favour of the embryo is an act which violates that right. Moral theology has always taught that in the case of Ajus certum tertii" the system of probabilism does not apply (Carrasco de Paula 1998, Lucas 1998, Cozzoli 1998 and Eusebi 1998). 3. Therefore, the ablation of the inner cell mass (ICM) of the blastocyst, which critically and irremediably damages the human embryo, curtailing its development, is a gravely immoral act and consequently is gravely illicit. 4. No end believed to be good, such as the use of stem cells for the preparation of other differentiated cells to be used in what look to be promising therapeutic procedures, can justify an intervention of this kind. A good end does not make right an action which in itself is wrong.

5. For Catholics, this position is explicitly confirmed by the Magisterium of the Church which, in the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, with reference to the Instruction Donum Vitae of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, affirms: The Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity in body and spirit: The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life'"( John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Evangelium Vitae" 1995). The second ethical problem: Is it morally licit to engage in so-called Atherapeutic cloning" by producing cloned human embryos and then destroying them in order to produce ES cells? The answer is negative, for the following reason: Every type of therapeutic cloning, which implies producing human embryos and then destroying them in order to obtain stem cells, is illicit; for there is present the ethical problem examined above, which can only be answered in the negative (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 1994, Shapiro 2005 and Di pietro 2005) The third ethical problem: Is it morally licit to use ES cells, and the differentiated cells obtained from them, which are supplied by other researchers or are commercially obtainable? The answer is negative, since: prescinding from the participation - formal or otherwise - in the morally illicit intention of the principal agent, the case in question entails a proximate material cooperation in the production and manipulation of human embryos on the part of those producing or supplying them. The Imperative to Respect Human Life The Catholic Church appreciates and encourages the progress of the biomedical sciences which open up unprecedented therapeutic prospects (Pope Benedict XVI, Address of January 31, 2008). At the same time, it affirms

that true service to humanity begins with respect for each and every human life. Because life is our first and most basic gift from an infinitely loving God, it deserves our utmost respect and protection. Direct attacks on innocent human life are always gravely wrong. Yet some researchers, ethicists, and policy makers claim that we may directly kill innocent embryonic human beings as if they were mere objects of researchand even that we should make taxpayers complicit in such killing through use of public funds. Thus, while human life is threatened in many ways in our society, the destruction of human embryos for stem cell research confronts us with the issue of respect for life in a stark new way. Almost everyone agrees with the principle that individuals and governments should not attack the lives of innocent human beings. However, several arguments have been used to justify destroying human embryos to obtain stem cells. It has been argued that (1) any harm done in this case is outweighed by the potential benefits; (2) what is destroyed is not a human life, or at least not a human being with fundamental human rights; and (3) dissecting human embryos for their cells should not be seen as involving a loss of embryonic life. We would like to comment briefly on each of these arguments. First, the false assumption that a good end can justify direct killing has been the source of much evil in our world. This utilitarian ethic has especially disastrous consequences when used to justify lethal experiments on fellow human beings in the name of progress. No commitment to a hoped-for greater good can erase or diminish the wrong of directly taking innocent human lives here and now. In fact, policies undermining our respect for human life can only endanger the vulnerable patients that stem cell research offers to help. The same ethic that justifies taking some lives to help the patient with Parkinsons or Alzheimers disease today can be used to sacrifice that very patient tomorrow, if his or her survival is viewed as disadvantaging other human beings considered more deserving or productive. The suffering of

patients and families affected by devastating illness deserves our compassion and our committed response, but not at the cost of our respect for life itself. Second, some claim that the embryo in his or her first week of development is too small, immature, or undeveloped to be considered a human life. Yet the human embryo, from conception onward, is as much a living member of the human species as any of us. As a matter of biological fact, this new living organism has the full complement of human genes and is actively expressing those genes to live and develop in a way that is unique to human beings, setting the essential foundation for further development. Though dependent in many ways, the embryo is a complete and distinct member of the species Homo sapiens, who develops toward maturity by directing his or her own integrated organic functioning. All later stages of life are steps in the history of a human being already in existence. Just as each of us was once an adolescent, a child, a newborn infant, and a child in the womb, each of us was once an embryo. Others, while acknowledging the scientific fact that the embryo is a living member of the human species, claim that life at this earliest stage is too weak or undeveloped, too lacking in mental or physical abilities, to have full human worth or human rights. But to claim that our rights depend on such factors is to deny that human beings have human dignity, that we have inherent value simply by being members of the human family. If fundamental rights such as the right to life are based on abilities or qualities that can appear or disappear, grow or diminish, and be greater or lesser in different human beings, then there are no inherent human rights, no true human equality, only privileges for the strong. As believers who recognize each human life as the gift of an infinitely loving God, we insist that every human being, however small or seemingly insignificant, matters to Godhence everyone, no matter how weak or small, is of concern to us. This is not only a teaching of the Catholic Church. Our nations Declaration of Independence took for granted that human beings are unequal in size, strength, and intelligence. Yet it declared that members of the human race who are unequal in all these respects are created equal in their fundamental 8

rights, beginning with the right to life. Tragically, this principle of equal human rights for all has not always been followed in practice, even by the Declarations signers. In light of modern knowledge about the continuity of human development from conception onwards, all of uswithout regard to religious affiliationconfront this challenge again today when we make decisions about human beings at the embryonic stage of development. Finally, some claim that scientists who kill embryos for their stem cells are not actually depriving anyone of life, because they are using spare or unwanted embryos who will die anyway. This argument is simply invalid. Ultimately each of us will die, but that gives no one a right to kill us. Our society does not permit lethal experiments on terminally ill patients or condemned prisoners on the pretext that they will soon die anyway. Likewise, the fact that an embryonic human being is at risk of being abandoned by his or her parents gives no individual or government a right to directly kill that human being first. A Better Way Nature in fact provides ample resources for pursuing medical progress without raising these grave moral concerns. Stem cells from adult tissues and umbilical cord blood are now known to be much more versatile than once thought. These cells are now in widespread use to treat many kinds of cancer and other illnesses, and in clinical trials they have already benefited patients suffering from heart disease, corneal damage, sickle-cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, and many other devastating conditions. Researchers have even developed new non-destructive methods for producing cells with the properties of embryonic stem cellsfor example, by reprogramming adult cells. There is no moral objection to research and therapy of this kind, when it involves no harm to human beings at any stage of development and is conducted with appropriate informed consent. Conclusion The issue of stem cell research does not force us to choose between science and ethics, much less between science and religion. It presents a choice as to how our society will pursue scientific and medical progress. Will we ignore ethical norms and use some of the most vulnerable human beings as objects, 9

undermining the respect for human life that is at the foundation of the healing arts? Such a course, even if it led to rapid technical progress, would be a regress in our efforts to build a society that is fully human. Instead we must pursue progress in ethically responsible ways that respect the dignity of each human being. Only this will produce cures and treatments that everyone can live with. REFERENCES Carrasco de Paula, I. Il Rispetto Dovuto all'Embrione Umano: Prospettiva Storico-Dottrinale, in Pontificia Academia Pro Vita, Identit e Statuto dell'Embrione Umano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Citt del Vaticano 1998, pp. 9-33; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in C.B.Cohen (ed.), Special Issue: Ethics and the Cloning of Human Embryos, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1994, n.4, 187-282 Cozzoli, M.. L'Embrione Umano: Aspetti Etico-Normativi, in Pontificia Academia Pro Vita, Identit e Statuto dell'Embrione Umano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Citt del Vaticano 1998, pp.237- 273; Di pietro, M.L. Dalla Clonazione Animale alla Clonazione dell'Uomo?, Medicina e Morale 1997, no. 6, 1099-2005 Dickenson, D. 'Property and Women's Alienation from Their Own Reproductive Labour', Bioethics, vol. 15, no. 3, 2001. Eusebi, L. La Tutela dell'Embrione Umano: Profili Giuridici, in Pontificia Academia Pro Vita, Identit e Statuto dell'Embrione Umano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Citt del Vaticano 1998, pp. 274-286. Holland, S. 'Beyond the Embryo: A Feminist Appraisal of the Embryonic Stem cell Debate' in Holland, et al., eds, The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate, 2001. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Evangelium Vitae" (25 March 1995), Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1995, 87, 401-522 Lucas, R. Statuto Antropologico dell'Embrione Umano, in Pontificia Academia Pro Vita, Identit e Statuto dell'Embrione Umano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Citt del Vaticano 1998, pp.159-185; 10

Savulescu , J. Every day people die because there are insufficient tissues available for transplantation. 'The Ethics of Cloning and Creating Embryonic Stem Cells as a Source of Tissue for Transplantation', Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine, vol. 30, 2000, pp. 49298. Serra, A. and Colombo, R. Identit e Statuto dell'Embrione Umano: il Contributo della Biologia, in Pontificia Academia Pro Vita, Identit e Statuto dell'Embrione Umano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Citt del Vaticano 1998, pp.106-158. Shapiro, H. T. Ethical and Policy Issues of Human Cloning, Science 1997, 277, 195-196 Sherwin, S. No Longer Patient: Feminist ethics and health Care, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1992, pp. 17475. The American Academy for the Advancement of Science, and the National Institutes of Health. Cited in Thomas B. Okarma, 'Human Embryonic Stem cells: A Primer on the Technology and Its Medical Applications', in The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate, S. Holland, H. Lebacqz, and Laurie Zoloth, eds, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2001. Warren, M.A. 'IVF and Women's Interests: An Analysis of Feminist Concerns', Bioethics, 1988, no. 2, pp. 3757

11