Stem Cell Research and the Debate Over Personhood
Stem cells are primitive cells that can differentiate into all of the other types of cells of a species. Scientists have found ways to develop stem cells into more than half of the 220 different types of cells in the human body. This technology is highly touted as the biggest step in medicine since antibiotics. Stem cell research could develop cures or treatments for 100 million Americans who suffer from various types of diseases such as bone loss, brain damage due to stroke, severe burns, some forms of cancer, Huntington’s, leukemia, lupus, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, osteroarthritis, Parkinson’s, and paralysis.
Stem cells can currently be obtained from surplus embryos that are less than 14 days old prepared in fertility clinics for implantation in parents unable to conceive naturally. The majority of these embryos, which consist of about 4 to 10 cells, are cryogenically frozen in case the first batch of embryos implanted into the mother’s womb does not result in any growing embryos. After they are of no use to the parents, some sit in freezers; many are simply thrown into the trash.
To obtain a stem cell, the inner cell mass, made up of a few stem cells, is removed, thus killing the rest of the embryo. After one stem cell is obtained, it can be cloned, to make millions of copies itself.
Some believe that there is no need to obtain new stem cells from embryos because we can use the existing stem cell lines we already have. However, as of December 2002, only 4 to 12 of the original 78 stem cell colonies were deemed scientifically useful. Furthermore, existing cell lines can degenerate and become useless. Worse still, there are many genetic groups who do not currently have any compatible cell line at all.
Though it is possible that stem cells may be harvested from human umbilical chords, fetal tissue, bone marrow, and cadavers, these alternate sources are extremely difficult to work with and produce stem cells with very limited usefulness
(i.e. cannot develop into many types of cells).
Destroying human embryos for the purpose of stem cell research has been prohibited in government labs in the United States since 1996. Stem lines were instead created in private labs and then shipped to government labs for further research. In August of 2001 however, President Bush further prohibited stem cell research by limiting all federally funded research to the existing stem cell lines.
Stem cells themselves, though capable of growing into a skin or heart cell, are incapable of growing into a human being, and thus are not bound by the government’s ban on embryo research.
Though, stem cell research is ongoing in private labs in the US, UK, and other countries, President Bush has restricted stem cell research to existing lines in government-sponsored labs here in the US.
On September 20th, 2002, Governor Davis signed the first bill expressly authorizing stem cell research in California, while simultaneously banning all human cloning. The bill, SB 253, which took effect on January 1st, 2003, authorizes research on cells extracted from adult and embryo sources. It further specifies that fertility clinic embryos donated to extract stem cells must be donated with the written consent of the “parents” of that embryo. Furthermore, the sale of such embryonic fetal tissue will be illegal.
Obtaining stem cells is a very controversial subject centering on the moral and ethical debate of killing surplus embryos stored in fertility clinics. In the end, the debate boils down to: are we killing just a few cells like we would when donating blood, or are we killing a person, a soul, that has the right to live?
The incredible potential of stem cells to save and improve lives creates a strong moral imperative to investigate stem cell research further.
Most embryos in fertility clinics will die through operator error, freezer malfunction, or, by intentional abandonment. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of these embryos have been destroyed by incineration, flushing down the drain, or just letting them be exposed to air, whereas only about 25 have been used to create stem cell lines. Surprisingly, I could not find anyone opposed to stem cell research actively protesting the destruction of embryos in any of these ways.
Some argue that an unborn child is not just capable of being human, but is human. It has a distinct genetic code from its parents. However, so too does a dead man. But we still think it moral (with the permission of its relatives) to use his body for science, and we certainly do not mandate the storage of his body in case someone comes along and wants to revive, or recreate him. Thus, the issue is not whether or not an embryo is human.
Most of those that oppose using embryos to obtain stem cells essentially believe that each embryo is a full human person with a soul. Thus, they have every right to life as you and I or a newborn child, and to kill one is murder.
Some would even argue that it would be immoral to use existing stem cell lines as they all originated with the murder of an embryo.
In addition, many dispute that these embryos are all being thrown away. Some “extra” stem cells are adopted by other couples in what is deemed “rescue surrogacy”. However, these cases are very rare.
Another concern is if it is deemed legal for researchers to obtain stem cells from fertility clinic embryos, will it eventually lead to a market for these human commodities? What will the going rate be? Indeed, it seems to be a definite possibility as people can presently purchase unfertilized eggs to be used in a fertilization clinic. However, some states may follow California’s lead and ban the sale of embryonic tissue.
The heart of the debate remains at whether we are killing a person, or a soul. This issue is extremely similar to the abortion debate with a few major differences.
| 1) | The primitive human is much further from a full grown person than a fetus in a womb. It does not have arms, legs, a heart, a brain, nor feeling or sensation of any sort. Thus, some would consider the debate over. If it is legal to abort a much more advanced human, then it should be legal to abort a much more primitive one. |
| 2) | The problem is the second major difference: These abortions are for research, which, though it may be a more noble purpose than merely the convenience of a mother, such a purpose smacks of past discriminatory human sacrifice and utilitarian goals set high above individual rights. As a society, I think it is the majority opinion that it is okay to experiment and advance science using bone marrow and stem cells from adults, without killing the entire person. But to kill a person, or even harm them against their will would be inexcusable. |
And thus, the ultimate moral question returns to whether or not these 4 to 10 cell embryos are people, or just groups of cells with the potential to become a person?
Scientifically speaking, once an egg is fertilized, it is a human being undergoing development. However, whether or not it is a person is another matter.
Roe v. Wade essentially said that fetuses do not attain personhood until they are viable outside the womb. By this reasoning, a primitive embryo would not be a person, and thus, could be used for research. The problem with this definition of personhood is that viability depends on extrinsic factors such as technology and I can’t reconcile why a fetus at 24 weeks would be a person today but not a person 20 years ago.
Others suggest that a human is not a “person” until it can do higher order thinking and communication, putting personhood beyond birth. This appears ridiculous because it would legalize infanticide. Furthermore, how low would one’s IQ need to be for them to no longer be a person.
Yet another criterion for personhood may be the point at which we attain a soul. Some argue that a soul is attained at conception, some at birth, some in between. The obvious problem is, what is a soul? Is it God given? Or is it an abstraction of self? Some definitions for the soul are, the mind, the will, or the emotion of man. If the soul is some combination of the mind or the emotion of man, it seems reasonable that one would not obtain a soul until they obtained a brain and at least the ability to feel or sense. However, if one takes the view that we have an innate will, or mind, the argument seems to point back to conception.
In the end, no one knows what makes a person too valuable to be sacrificed, whether it be for the common good or not.
Personally, I think that a human should gain personhood at the moment they form a functioning brain and senses, at which point they can feel pain, perhaps have a notion of self, perhaps even attain a soul.
On the other hand, I think it is inexcusable to sacrifice a human being for any research ever.
As for the embryos at fertility clinics to be flushed down the drain, tossed in the garbage or stored until the freezers break, I would find it immoral and unethical to let such potential go to waste. I would legalize the donation and research of unused fertility clinic embryos as long as it is legal to create surplus embryos in the first place. This distinction between using an already existing and superfluous “pre-person” human for research should be distinct from creating a human for the purpose of research. It sounds like semantics, but it is similar to the distinction of using a cadaver for research and creating a cadaver for research.
