Allowing the Use of Discarded IVF Embryos for Stem Cell Research Is Ethical - Essay Example

 Allowing the Use of Discarded IVF Embryos for Stem Cell Research Is Ethical Stem cell research is a hotly debated topic in public and private. The moral debate and the scientific debate are hard to separate, because as a society we have difficulty defining a point at which the “potentiality” of a group of cells can become an “actuality,” and by our nature as individuals we carry opinions of moral arguments wherever we go. Those who argue against stem cell research on moral grounds point at science and say, Any potentiality is a possibility, no matter how remote it may be. Biologists respond by saying, We’re not evildoers; we just want to define how good a possibility really is. Rhetoric abounds. There are several sources of stem cells. Adult stem cells can be taken from an individual, coaxed into becoming something useful in therapy, and transplanted back into the body. However, the usefulness of adult stem cells is limited, because not all types of cells have been isolated, and they are difficult to isolate because they occur in minute quantities in adults (NIH 11). Embryonic stem cells are the most flexible, and can be obtained from in vitro fertilization patients, thus avoiding the moral quagmire of the abortion debate entirely. Rhetorical Arguments Against Stem Cell Research While visions of Nazi-level experimentation dance in our heads, it’s hard to come to a moral and logical conclusion regarding stem cell research. The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity comments, “If anything is to be gained from the cruel atrocities committed against human beings in the last century and a half, it is the lesson that the utilitarian devaluation of one group of human begins for the alleged benefit of others is a price we simply cannot afford to pay” (CBHD 53). By demonizing stem cell researchers as cold-blooded, immoral baby killers, this argument avoids actually defining the boundaries of human life and descends into rhetoric. Medical professional must put aside rhetoric and stick to the facts. The “if-then” scenarios put forth by the religious right are especially rhetorical. If, they argue, we determine that a blastocyst or embryo isn’t viable because it can’t survive on its own (separate from major medical intervention or a mother’s womb), then we are only one small step away from using comatose patients in medical experiments (Sullivan 59). Again, the argument is not a scientific one; it is simply a drawing room discussion with no boundaries. Leftover embryos from IVF patients are no longer useful to those who would donate them, and their potentiality is limited. Determining Potentiality It is so difficult to not dismiss such rhetorical arguments out of hand. There is value, in any branch of medicine, in examining the moral and ethical implications of everything we medical professionals do. We must try to base our conclusions on the best scientific and empirical evidence we have available, however, and leave rhetorical discussions aside. From the moment of conception, the group of cells with the potential to become a human life goes through a series of changes that advance it toward that end. If the process is interrupted at any point along the way, even up to the moment of birth, the developing embryo or fetus (with the potentiality for human life) can cease to exist. Possibility merges into probability as long as the process advances. Biologists struggle with the moral and scientific definitions of possibility and probability, and through studying the development of embryos, have marked various stages as the one that is the beginning of realistic potentiality. Perhaps the earliest stage is gastriculation, which occurs around the fourteenth day after the egg is fertilized (Maienschein 2003, 261). This is not to say that at the fourteenth day, an embryo IS a person, just that an important physical moment has occurred which sets the embryo on the path of greater potentiality. This begins to address, scientifically, the argument that even a fertilized egg has the proper amount of potentiality and so should not be destroyed by human intervention. Lizza (2007) attempts to define “realistic and ethically relevant” potentiality (380). He acknowledges that there is a moral argument, and attempts to establish boundaries based on empirical evidence, not emotional or moral evidence. Given the appropriate conditions, any pile of stuff has the potential to become something else; the cells produced in the laboratory, or multiple fertilized eggs produced through IVF treatments, do indeed have the possibility of becoming people endowed with will and intellect. However, Lizza continues, the probability of these blastocysts reaching this potential is not realistic. Thus, it is morally permissible to use cells which otherwise would be destroyed, as long as they will not be brought to their full potential. By the very fact that they are slated to be destroyed, their potential is eliminated. The blastocysts were not created with the intention of producing dozens of humans. The earlier argument from McLeod and Baylis is addressed here; no social injustice occurs. Perhaps we can come to an agreement, morally and scientifically, on when a group of dividing cells has enough potential to set it outside being used for stem cell research. Kuhse and Singer (1990) state, “To protect human embryos from suffering, embryonic experimentation should not be conducted after embryos are twenty-eight days old, at which time they become sentient” (26). While we could continue to argue what the definitions of sentience actually are, this seems a good cutting-off point, since viable stem cells from a blastocyst become available four to five days after fertilization. Making Discarded IVF Embryos Available to Stem Cell Researchers While examining in vitro fertilization clinics as sources for stem cells, McLeod and Baylis (2007) draw a line between embryos which are suitable to be transferred to an infertile woman, and which are not. Embryos are tested for genetic viability, and it is the policy of IVF clinics to destroy those that test unsuitable rather than freezing them. Suitable embryos are frozen for later use if the implanted pregnancy doesn’t “take,” or destroyed as well. Some IVF clinics ask women to donate these viable embryos to stem cell research (466). McLeod and Baylis argue that is against women’s best interest to donate viable embryos to stem cell research because this encourage the continued oppression of women, thus working against social justice. That basis for an argument against donating viable embryos to stem cell researchers is a bit dramatic. There’s no evidence to support the idea that stem cell researchers look upon women undergoing IVF treatment as embryo factories. It is true that IVF treatments are painful, lengthy, and often don’t result in women giving birth even after trying for years. The viable embryos, whether fresh or frozen, could be useful to stem cell researchers, and it is a woman’s choice whether or not she wants to donate them, not the researchers’ nor the clinicians’ choice. Rhetorical arguments setting the potentiality at the moment of conception, or demonizing stem-cell researchers, are simply not based in any scientific fact. It’s not that there is no argument; medical professionals have to be extra-careful to interpret research without putting personal agendas into the interpretations, whether those personal agendas are at one extreme or the other. We must remain reasonable, above all, and use the best knowledge we have available to make decisions that impact the lives around us. Allowing stem cell researchers to use freely donated embryos from IVF treatments helps further the causes of the research. References Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity (CBHD). Embryonic stem cell research is unethical. Human Embryo Experimentation, R. Espejo, ed. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2002. Kuhse, H. and Singer, P. Early human embryos are not human beings. Human Embryo Experimentation, R. Espejo, ed. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2002. Lizza, J. (2007, September). Potentiality and human embryos. Bioethics, 21(7), 379-385. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from CINAHL Plus with Full Text database. Maienschein, J. Whose view of life? Cambridge: Harvard University, 2003. McLeod, C., and Baylis, F. (2007, November). Donating fresh versus frozen embryos to stem cell research: in whose interests? Bioethics, 21(9), 465-477. Retrieved December 9, 2008, from CINAHL Plus with Full Text database. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Embryonic stem cell research is beneficial. Human Embryo Experimentation, R. Espejo, ed. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2002. Sullivan, A. Early human embryos are human beings. Human Embryo Experimentation, R. Espejo, ed. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2002. Read More