The Stem Cell Debate
This week I’ve been reading about the controversy associated with Michael J. Fox’s commercials supporting embryonic stem cell research in Missouri. Of course, Rush Limbaugh immediately criticized it as a political ploy, which, it was, but political ploys aren’t necessarily bad.
To begin with, I don’t have a problem with a celebrity (or anyone else, for that matter) making a commercial supporting a cause they believe in. It seems to be the American way, even if the commercial is based more on an emotional plea than a substantive logical argument. I would argue that 90%+ of the commercials on television are an appeal to emotion. Why else do beer commercials have scores of young, blond-headed women?
I read an article (Link) this morning that said the NIH (National Institute of Health) agreed with the premise of the commercial—that embryonic stem cells show the most promise in curing Parkinson’s disease. A reader commented on the article, arguing that adult stem cells are presently more effective than embryonic stem cells. Another reader quickly pointed out that we never know what is effective until it has been researched. 500 years ago, people would have scoffed to hear that a mold could cure a myriad of diseases (penicillin). So the argument that embryonic stem cells aren’t currently effectual does not mean much.
Fox seems like a nice guy, and I certainly don’t want him to suffer from a disease that is slowly eroding his ability to live. Say for example, another adult had the cure to Parkinson’s disease. The adult walked over to Fox and said, “Michael, I can cure your disease. All that is required is for you to take some cells from my spine and inject them in your brain. Unfortunately, when you take these cells from me, I’ll be a quadriplegic.” I’m sure that Fox would thank him for his help and graciously decline the offer. Why--he could not accept an offer that destroyed another life.
What if that man was a convicted felon that was soon to be executed? The man was going to die within the next twenty-four hours but refused to sign the consent forms because he was a Muslim and believed that would defile his body. Would it be right to force him to give his spinal cells to save Fox? Once again, I’m sure Fox would decline this offer because it would violate the sanctity of life.
Most of the western world has an intrinsic belief that human life is worthwhile and should not unnecessarily be destroyed. That is the reason that we have statutes against murder and dismemberment. In fact, most of our laws have a basis in the concept that it is “wrong” to injure someone else. So the question we must ask is: what is human life?
The root question in the stem cell debate is not the effectual nature of the cells, but a question of what is human life and when does it begin? Is a child with down-syndrome human? Is an elderly person with Alzheimer’s disease a human? In both cases, we would agree that these people are human and their lives, however difficult they may be, are valuable. So then, when does it begin? Most in the scientific world believe that life begins after birth, but in the Christian world, life beings at conception. And for me, since I believe that life begins at the point of conception, I must unequivocally state that destroying fertilized human eggs is an unethical behavior. I cannot condone a behavior that is unethical.
Most of us agree that theft is wrong. We know it’s wrong when some bully steals another kid’s lunch money. What if I asked you if stealing some paper clips from your work was wrong? What about stealing $2 billion from your work is wrong? Would you agree that both activities are unethical? Both actions are wrong, even though the amount of wrong done seems to be different. It’s easy to repay a few paper clips. It’s tough to repay $2 billion. To a certain extent, we feel like killing embryos is similar to taking some paper clips: it’s small and no one will care. But the premise is the same—the amount of wrong done does not change it’s natural unethical state.
You may ask, “What if embryonic stem cells will save and improve the lives of millions? Doesn’t this make it an ethical behavior? I mean, the end is so beneficial, we must suffer through the means, right.” All this argument sounds nice, but it’s a nasty and slippery slope that will lead to unintended consequences. During the 1930’s and 1940’s, Germany embarked on a number of scientific experiments on Jewish and political prisoners. They learned a lot about the human body, including some significant gains in our knowledge of hypothermia. They did this because they believed the suffering inflicted by the test subjects would be more beneficial to the rest of society. And that made their actions right. It didn’t hurt that they believed the test subjects were not the chosen race.
The question therefore is this: what is human life? Don’t allow the debate to rage on about curing diseases. This isn’t about being “anticure” as Robert Alter of Newsweek proposed (Link). The issue is about what constitutes life.
But you ask, “Andrew, what happens if you get Parkinson’s disease one day, and scientists have developed a cure using embryonic stem cells. Would you take the treatment?” This is a tough question that… I would like to say, “No, I would not,” but I’m not suffering through it and I would have a hard time turning down something that would help me, even if gained from unethical means. I suppose this is why it’s more important to stop the experimentation before we go too far. The road would take us to dark places that I fear we do not expect nor do we want to experience.