Modern Conservatism and Stem Cell Research - Essay Example

Modern Conservatism and Stem Cell Research Introduction The ethics of stem cell research remain the of fierce debate; more particularly, there is a persistent notion that a technological ability to do something must be viewed through a larger ethical prism. This is particularly evident in modern Conservative circles where the stem cell debate has led to factional infighting and spirited disagreement. Some Conservative factions have argued for a wholesale prohibition while other Conservative factions have advocated varying degrees of compromise. George W. Bush’s administration initially resisted requests for a general tolerance regarding stem cell research, though it eventually adopted a compromise position in which federal funds would be granted for such research if certain stringent criteria were satisfied (“U.S. Policy on Stem Cell Research”). The compromise failed to satisfy all of the interested Conservative groups and seems more of a stop-gap policy within Conservatism than a long-term resolution. The debate has hardly subsided. This essay will examine how Conservative thought ought to resolve the ethical dilemmas involved in stem cell research; more specifically, this essay will examine the religious dimensions of the debate and whether Conservative thought can be reconciled with stem cell research. To this end, this essay will define what is meant by stem cell research and then discuss the extant to which the religious orientation of modern Conservatives is consistent or inconsistent with stem cell research. Stem Cell Research: Definitions, Types, and Ethical Issues As a preliminary matter, it must be noted that stem cells are not new. It is the manipulation of stem cells that has raised a myriad of ethical issues. Most simply, as defined by the National Institutes of Health, the biomedical organization vested with executing American health policy regarding stem cell research, stem cells are, “Cells with the ability to divide for indefinite periods in culture and to give rise to specialized cells” (“Stem Cell Basics”). However, and of critical importance, there are two types of stem cells. These are embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. Many Conservatives are fiercely opposed to research involving embryonic stem cells; this is because they view these cells as a form of life entitled to sanctity and protection. Indeed, as stated by Dr. Samuel D. Hensley, a fellow at the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity as well as an Assistant Clinical Professor at the University of Mississippi School of Medicine, “The critical ethical issue here is whether cloned human embryos are unique human beings--with inherent human dignity and therefore worthy of protection--or whether they are, as some have asserted, merely microscopic globs of cellular material. We must ask ourselves if embryos are human beings deserving of protection. Are they human persons?” (2003, np). On the other hand, there is a second type of stem cell that often generates less criticism. This second type of stem cell is an adult stem cell. This type of stem cell is already in existence, it can be extracted from human beings rather than being created through cloning, and it offers the possibility of escaping the argument that scientists are both creating and destroying life in order to attain certain scientific goals. The distinction, as will be demonstrated below, is hardly insignificant. The embryonic stem cell, derived through cloning, is created and then deprived of its essential universal function (developing into a human being) in order to attempt to solve certain medical challenges such as heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, and diabetes. By contrast, adult stem cells do not involve the creation issue so directly and they can be extracted rather than created in order to pursue certain medical goals. Even the more devout Conservative bioethicists, such as Hensley, concede the significance of the distinction, “A steady stream of scientific publications suggests that clinically promising stem cells can be obtained from multiple organs and tissues in children and adults, including pancreas, fat, bone marrow, and even brain. Importantly, such stem cells can be derived without sacrificing embryos” (2003, np). It is this lack of a sacrifice, the absence of an alleged life both created and subsequently destroyed, that makes adult stem cell research more acceptable to Conservative theorists. In short, the stem cell debate can be defined thusly: (1) scientists see great promise in solving challenging medical problems through stem cell research; (2) embryonic stem cell research is most seriously condemned by many Conservatives because this type of stem cell research requires both the creation and the destruction of a potential human being in order to carry out the research; and (3) adult stem cell research is considered a viable alternative course by some Conservatives because life is not being created directly. In order to more clearly understand these intellectual and ethical approaches, however, it is necessary to better understand how religion affects the Conservative world view. Reconciling the Three Principles of Conservatism and Stem Cell Research As noted by Harbour, “the essence of the religious orientation of Conservatism is found in the acceptance by most Conservatives of the Cosmological principle, theocentric humanism, and their chief sociological maxim” (11). Thus, if the stem cell debate among Conservatives is to be properly understood, it is first necessary to understand these fundamental tenets. The Cosmological principle seeks to harmonize the larger universe and man’s proper place in the universe. Most importantly, this principle is premised upon a God-centered universe in which man is dependent rather than the relevant driving force. The order is therefore divinely mandated and human attempts to deviate from this divine scheme lead to problems rather than solutions. As noted by Rossiter, this principle is not strictly orthodox or dogmatic; rather, it simply sets forth a cohesive natural order from which subsequent inquiries into human nature, human reason, moral values, freedom, and the construction of stable societies can proceed (cited in Harbour, 12). In terms of stem cell research, therefore, relying upon Enlightenment theory or achievements is of little value in terms of understanding the Conservative position. Because man is dependent, attempts to supplant God’s role as creator are bound to be met with resistance. That Conservatives view embryonic stem cell research with suspicion is quite natural. Rossiter’s caveat, that this view is not without some limitations, offers a possible theoretical escape rout for the use of adult stem cells. In this case, man is not supplanting the role of God or his divine order; instead, man is simply using the order which God has provided in order to improve man’s quality of life. Thus, whereas embryonic stem cell research would threaten the Cosmological principle the pursuit of adult stem cell research escapes this theoretical problem. The second fundamental premise, a belief in a theocentric type of humanism, is derived from the Cosmological principle. This type of humanism is Christian in nature, it is more concerned with man’s inner development than material gains, and it defines the goodness of a man in terms of his harmonious relationship with God. This harmony is achieved, as explained by Germino, by pursuing such Christian acts as justice and righteousness rather than non-Christian acts such as monetary gain, personal glory, and powerful social status (cited in Harbour, 13-14). This type of humanism rewards things like intention and adherence rather than things like material success and scientific achievement. A person very well might win a Nobel Peace Prize and run afoul of this basic principle. Human life is precious, its conduct is to be carried out pursuant to the Judeo-Christian ethic, and modern Conservative approaches to social issues are guided by this type of humanism. In order to analyze Conservative thought in this regard, as it pertains to stem cell research, it becomes necessary to look at the desired ends rather than the means. The means, embryonic stem cell research versus adult stem cell research, have been addressed in reference to the Cosmological principle; here, the theocentric humanism is concerned with the ends to which the research is pursued. Most of the proffered goals are quite consistent with theocentric humanism. The basic goals are to accomplish scientific advancements which help solve difficult medical problems and to ease man’s pain and suffering. There is nothing inherently wrong, from the point of view of theocentric humanism, with these objectives. It is true, to be sure, that some of the researchers are pursuing patents for financial rewards, breakthroughs for professional advancement, and that personal ethics are neglected in efforts to secure generous funding and investments. These non-Christian pursuits, however, are tangential and do not taint the essential goal of easing man’s pain and suffering. It can thus be argued that adult stem cell research does not offend the Cosmological principle and that a desire to ease the pain and suffering of people afflicted with terrible diseases is consistent with theocentric humanism. An examination of certain types of social criticism by modern Conservatives is illuminating. As noted by Harbour, there are several policies and features of modern American society that Conservatives find particularly distasteful. Some of the features have been framed by reference to such issues as the decline of the traditional family structure, a sort of sexual freedom that upsets man’s place in the universe, abortion rulings that denigrate the sanctity of human life, a materialism that promotes social status and monetary worth as ultimate goals, and violent crime that plagues communities across the country. Conservatives do not view these acts and their consequences as necessary; quite the contrary, their brand of humanism assumes that a theocentric approach to social issues would better promote and guarantee social stability as well as a more pervasive moral country. It is in this context of humanism that stem cell research must be evaluated. A fair reading of these first two principles suggests that adult stem cell research designed to provide medical charity and Christian relief to our fellow man is both theoretically defensible and can be reconciled with even a strict reading of these two principles. Finally, as stated by Harbour, a religion is the foundation of a stable and secure social order; this has been expressed as the Chief Sociological Maxim or the third principle (16). The significance of this principle cannot be underestimated when attempting to understand Conservatism. Burke has emphasized the absolute necessity of linking religion with social matters and even civilizations more generally, stating that “We know, and it is our pride to know, that man is by his constitution a religious animal; that atheism is against, not only our reason but our instincts; and that it cannot prevail long” (cited in Harbour, 16). While Burke was referring to the social trials and tribulations associated with the French Revolution centuries ago, his point remains salient for modern Conservatives. The point has significant sociological implications. First, man being a religious animal, ethics must guide man’s actions. There are transcendental truths and any attempts by man to supplant or violate these truths are bound to result in threats to social peace and stability. Burke would probably be alarmed by embryonic stem cell research but more open to adult stem cell research. This is because the former would be a direct threat to God’s function in the larger divine order whereas the latter would simply be man using things already provided by the Almighty. Second, as noted by Voegelin, Conservatives exist in a sort of in-between realm in which man cannot be expected to do nothing in pursuit of noble aims (cited in Harbour, 20). Adult stem cell research is not defeating the universe. It is merely using the knowledge that God has given us to pursue a better quality of life. Conclusions In the final analysis, it would be too much to suggest that stem cell research of all types would be inconsistent with the guiding religious principles of Conservatism. After all, Conservatism is not irrational, it is not without mercy for those afflicted with debilitating diseases, and a fair reading of the Cosmological principle, of the premises underlying theocentric humanism, and the Chief Sociological Maxim can be reconciled with the pursuit of adult stem cell research designed to ease pain and suffering. Embryonic stem cell research, on the other hand, conflicts with the Cosmological principle and is perhaps impossible or extraordinarily difficult to reconcile with God’s divine order as understood by believers of the Judeo-Christian Ethic. Works Cited Harbour, W. “The Religious Orientation of Conservative Thought.” The Foundations of Conservative Thought. Hemsley, Samuel, D. (2003). “AMA Approves Creating Life for Destructive Purposes.” The Center for Bioethics Human Dignity, Trinity International University. http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/hensley_2003-07-09.htm “Stem Cell Basics.” The National Institutes of Health. http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/ “U.S. Policy on Stem Cell Research.” The National Institutes of Health. http://stemcells.nih.gov/policy/ Read More