T

Bush Takes High Ground on Stem Cells

Dónal P. O'Mathúna

{Printed in The Columbus Dispatch, August 11, 2001, p. A12}

President Bush has decided not to allow federal funding of stem cell research that leads to further destruction of human embryos. Research using cell lines obtained from previously destroyed embryos may receive funding. Some people will be disappointed that this decision will curtail the potential of stem cell research to provide replacement tissues for people with many diseases.

But Bush has sought the higher moral ground. He has put the value of human life above the uncertain potential of scientific research.

From a purely scientific perspective, debate rages over whether embryonic cells are necessary to achieve the potential benefits of stem-cell research. While public attention has focused on embryonic stem cells, many adult tissues also contain stem cells.

Adult stem cells are less plentiful and are not believed to be able to develop into as many types of tissues, but reports continue to support their potential. And using adult stem cells means no embryos are destroyed. Bush has encouraged significant funding of stem-cell research that does not involve the destruction of human embryos, which always occurs when their stem cells are removed.

The debate over embryonic stem-cell research is a classic example of the clash between two very different approaches to resolving ethical dilemmas. On the one hand, the utilitarian, pragmatic approach weighs the benefits against the potential losses. If these embryos would not have existed anyway, or if they were fertility-clinic surplus destined only for destruction, no further harm occurs if they are destroyed during research. Instead, huge benefits may accrue if they relieve or cure illnesses.

On the other hand are those whose approach to ethics insists that some things are wrong no matter what the potential benefit. Just as the good of discovering important information does not justify torturing someone, the good of society does not justify sacrificing innocent humans.

Human embryos are living, and they are human. They are human beings at their earliest stage of development. But should they be viewed as persons with rights or, as a New York Times editorial recently stated, as "just" clumps of microscopic cells with no intrinsic moral worth?

This debate is as old as ethics, in one form or another. Two thousand years ago the question was put to Jesus of Nazareth in terms of "Who is my neighbor?" Having just declared that loving one's neighbor as oneself was second in importance only to loving God, a young inquirer asked who his neighbors were. By labeling some as not his neighbors, he could dodge treating them the way he would treat himself.

Throughout history, this approach has justified humanity's worst evils. Jews and invalids were viewed as less than fully human to justify the Holocaust. Slaves were declared nonpersons to justify treating them as subhuman. Today, we know its wrong to kill innocent persons, even if transplanting their tissues might lead to much good for others. Now, some view human embryos as nonpersons to justify killing them.

Jesus replied with the well-known story of the Good Samaritan and the Jewish man left for dead by muggers. All the "good people" passed him by, but the Samaritan cared for him.

Jesus asked, "Who then was a neighbor to this man?" He took the focus off abstract questions about moral status and put it onto the practical question of what our actions say about us. What sort of person walks past an injured man, leaving him for dead on the road? Maybe those passers-by rationalized that he was not their neighbor. But they refused to help the man like a good neighbor would.

The Samaritan came to the man's assistance even though he wasn't his neighbor; he was a sworn enemy. The Samaritan protected the man, brought healing, and promoted his well-being as best he could. He demonstrated compassion, mercy and justice. He was more concerned with being a good neighbor, than with figuring out neighbor status.

Those who bring human embryos into being should act as caretakers, nurturing and protecting these tiny human lives. The debate regarding their personhood should not prevent us from acting as neighbors towards them. Endorsing their destruction abdicates the primary ethical principle of medicine: First do no harm. Destroying human embryos promotes the view that some humans can be used as tools in the hands of others. It makes it easier for society to abdicate its responsibilities to the weak and vulnerable, especially if we can rationalize that they weren't our neighbors anyway.

Bush's decision to prevent federal funding of embryo destruction is one step along the road to promoting the neighborly values that have made the Good Samaritan synonymous with the best in medical care.