Stem Cell Research: Ethical, Moral and Legal Dilemma - Case Study Example

and Number Stem Cell Research: Ethical, Moral and Legal Dilemma The controversy over stem cell research reach has been ongoing and promises to continue over time with changing political administrations and arguments pro and con within the scientific and medical community itself. As science’s answer to many genetic diseases, the practice promises the hope of eliminating, perhaps in our time, genetic propensities to cancer and other inherited conditions. Its usefulness in, and research on the treatment of Parkinson’s has been promoted by doctors and advocated by celebrities. On the opposing side there are those who say using vibrant fetal tissue in such studies is medically unethical, morally wrong, possibly unnecessary, and from a legal standpoint, dubious. It is impossible to reconcile these positions due to distinctly opposing views inherent in medical science versus varying views and interpretations of ethics and morality. It is of value to describe the crux of tissue controversy, as the one surrounding tissue from a vibrant fetus is different from an overall discussion of stem cell research in general. Siegel explains: A typical day-5 human embryo consists of 200-250 cells, most of which comprise the trophoblast, which is the outermost layer of the blastocyst. HESCs are harvested from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst, which consists of 30-34 cells. The derivation of HESC cultures requires the removal of the trophoblast. This process of disaggregating the blastocysts cells eliminates its potential for further development. Opponents of HESC research argue that the research is morally impermissible because it involves the unjust killing of innocent human beings. (Siegel par. 2). Moral and ethical debates have raged since the idea of stem cell research first crossed scientists’ minds. One simplistic argument against opposition to the research centers upon abortion fetuses from which many of the cells are gathered. The moral rational is that in the event of an abortion at least some good for the whole of humanity can come of it. Reading into this position, one can make a case that the apologist him or herself is admitting abortion is unethical, highlighting the complexity of the argument. Besides, they might say, research cannot be done on adult stem cells because they don’t share the same aspects as those from an embryo. The good of the research outweighs the bad of the methods. The end justifies the means, since embryonic stem cell research can help find cures for, or prevent diseases including Cancer and Parkinson’s but also Alzheimer’s, Heart disease, Stroke, Diabetes, birth defects, spinal cord injuries, organ damage and transplant rejection. Medical researchers insist embryonic stem cells are needed because they alone are able to reproduce any other cell in the body, thus helping researchers gather more accurate information about how the development can affect various conditions. On the equally convincing opposing side of the moral argument, opponents also have compelling points. They insist stem cell researchers are playing God; that trading fetal tissue for research devalues human life, and that the whole scientific endeavor will lead to immoral, unethical and unnatural practices such as cloning. These points, and those made by researchers, however, are just the beginning of a far more complex discussion, which in the end presents more questions than answers. Or, as Thomas Aquinas speaking of the human inability to grasp ethical truths might have predicted, humans “need to have things explained to them point by point in detail…” (Aquinas 4). And unfortunately, even then it is difficult for individuals to get beyond their own preferred ways of thinking. As George W. Bush said in his statement of ethical principle on a planned veto of a house bill to approve stem cell research, “The use of federal dollars to destroy life is something I simply do not support” (Bellomo 4). While scientists may say a fetus does not represent human life, Bush, approaching it from a stated religious [moral] position, prefers to think it does. Attitudes such as Bush’s obviously depend largely on religious and moral stances, which are as many and diverse as ideas regarding the subject. Probably the most significant preference is when one chooses to believe ideas regarding the beginning of life. As might be imagined, if one holds fast to the notion that life begins upon conception, and more particularly, that a higher being is the cause of that life, ethical and moral choices are clear. That choice involves more than simply feeling uncomfortable with a cavalier disregard for the fetus as a living entity. For instance, Schultz questions the ethical moral position of Ronald Green and his position that stem cell research should be permitted on the basis of “metaphysical choice,” which Schultz alternately describes as “deriving from an implicit, underlying Kant-like ‘metaphysics of choice’” (1). He extrapolates that view to meaning Kant’s “metaphysics of morals”(1). As a choice-based solution, Schultz questions not the validly of Green’s approach, but more the reasoning behind it as perhaps less altruistic in the humane scientific sense than egoistic. The challenge is interesting in that positions based on ego are not generally construed as altruistic. So in challenging Green from that perspective he is actually challenging the reasons behind his pro stem cell rationale as somehow flawed, essentially dishonest and therefore unethical. Green, however, challenges this notion, saying that the position misses the point, calling the moral determinations “balancing decisions…in which the community of moral agents weighs its interests in protecting an entity against the burdens of doing so… [proposing that] thinkers on the ‘right’ and ‘left’ of our bioethics debates have resisted or missed this basic insight” (Green 20). Applying this to Kant, Green’s defense makes both rationale and moral sense. Kant writes: …my concern here is with moral philosophy… if a law is to have moral force, i. e., to be the basis of an obligation, it must carry with it absolute necessity; that, for example, the precept, ‘Thou shalt not lie [or as in the stem cell argument, kill],’ is not valid for men alone, as if other rational beings had no need to observe it... must not be sought in the nature of man, or in the circumstances in the world in which he is placed... although any other precept which is founded on principles of mere experience may be in certain respects universal…such a precept, while it may be a practical rule, can never be called a moral law. (Kant, Preface, par 7). The choice aspect here then is obvious--less a matter of ego than rationale necessity. Yet in analyzing Aristotle and his conclusion that there is a place for common morality, Kenny suggests that “No value is absolute in the sense that its pursuit justifies the violation of every norm” (108). The problem here is that we are not certain what those norms consist of, since no empirical data is available on what Americans consider the norm when it comes to stem cell research with vibrant tissue. The Aristotelian position vis a vis Kenny is as complex and convoluted as any other with which we are confronted when it comes to the ethics of stem cell research with vibrant tissue, and that the fact that it undoubtedly has scientific benefits. Kenny and Aristotle place this scientific truth in an awkward position as “a value which is independent, in the sense that its pursuit needs no ulterior justification… [However] It is a value which is absolute in the sense that it is not relative to particular societies, but it is [also] not absolute in the sense that it trumps all other moral values or overrides all moral norms”(Kenny 108). Purely ethical considerations are a bit less muddied than those moral in that the use of vibrant tissue may have scientific alternatives and may enhance the possibility of both medical and societal abuse. Further, the potential uses of stem cells for generating human tissues and, perhaps, organs, is a subject of ongoing public debate on religious challenges that the practice is unethical in “playing God.” Of particular interest are the many ethical critiques proposed by pro-life advocates using aspects of the stem cell controversy to surreptitiously further their cause. Citing the “hype” surrounding proposed stem cell advances in medicine, some call the hype itself unethical in its promises that have not been realized at the expense of “human” life. Given the alternatives of gleaning cells from other sources outside of the human embryo make for a somewhat convincing case that continuing to insist on using the embryonic blastocyst approaches the unethical, despite some scientific claims that it is necessary. But as Bellomo asserts, this may be “wishful thinking” and that the answer at best is “complex” (144). In terms of research, while trials with adult cells are ongoing but not conclusive, then, is it ethical to deny life saving treatment to patients using embryonic cells, while science figures out another way? This poses questions for the ethical nature of scientific research itself as self-perpetuating, despite evidence that “adult cells simply do not have the pluripotent ability to morph into any kinds of cells” (Bellomo 144). Or as one embryonic stem cell researcher put it, “…is it moral [or ethical] to do nothing and allow human suffering to go unchecked when you know you could do something to stop it” (Bellomo 2)? The challenge, however, from philosophers including John Locke twists this attempt to determine ethical behavior is perhaps a human attempt at rationalization. “Lockes view of human nature was such that rationalist ethics, laudable though they might be in theory, could never sufficiently motivate men in the performance of their Christian duties” (Spellman 56). The fact that this idea is proposed in John Locke and the Problem of Depravity leads to another ethical question more grounded in aspects of science itself and medical research as a materialistic endeavor for material gain. Charges have been made over time that research done with aborted fetuses encourage medical promotion of abortion and the use of and production of in vitro fetuses for this purpose. The charge intimates a flagrant disregard for life as beginning with conception, and presents a view of the research as a Frankenstein-like experiment long abhorred as playing God. If this is true, one must certainly see the lack of both morality and ethics in a process that promotes material gain over the actual benefits of the research to humankind. Spellman quoting Locke suggests, “’…such is the disorder and confusion which Sin has introducd into human Nature, such is the general depravation of Mankind’, that even with the aid of other-worldly sanctions men will still mistake the moral good” (169). Beyond the ethical and moral entanglements there are legal questions as well which must be addressed. Most but not all rely on the fetus’s right to life, and an attempt to satisfy both sides of the questions through regulation. At a federal level, scientists are prohibited from using government money to create new embryonic stem cell lines. All publicly funded work is confined to the original 61 stem cell lines known since 2001, when the ban on deriving new lines was put in place. Individual states, however, can pass their own laws regarding human embryonic stem cell research using state funds. Several states have done so, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, and Illinois. As early as 2009, in Doe v. Obama, plaintiffs Mary Scott Doe, a frozen embryo symbolizing all existing frozen embryos, and several adoptive parents claimed that the President’s [Obama’s] order and the NIH guidelines violated the embryos’ Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. ( Doe v Obama, http://martinpalmer.com/documents/Complaint_.pdf). Lawsuits have been many and varied. In 2010, two adult stem cell proponents sued the Obama Administration for its attempt to use taxpayer money to fund embryonic stem cell research on the basis of the Dickey Amendment, which prohibits such practices. As late as March, 2011 several suits to the same affect were still ongoing in the courts, despite The National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines allowing researchers to apply for federal funding providing embryos used are unused from in vitro fertilization, and donated with appropriate consent. A myriad of injunctions and appeals keep the issue in the courts, and the prospect of continued legal wrangling looms. Conclusion Needless to say, what we have is an extremely complex problem involving morality, ethics, religious beliefs, scientific progress and legality. The most recent research has somewhat shown that there are research options other than embryonic stem cells, but it is disputed. Can stem cells be obtained from cord blood or derived by manipulating differentiated cells (i.e. skin cells) to revert them to a pluripotent state? Or are these merely suggestions to help all stem cell research become more accepted? It is important that policy makers find the balance between adhering to cultural beliefs, morals and values, while being sure not to limit the availability of resources and scopes of research if many current medical mysteries are to be solved. In short, advances promised by stem cell research should not be sacrificed on the altar of arguments as narrow as, when does or does not life begin. However, the moral, ethical and societal questions must be dealt with. That is clear. What is also clear is that the questions are significantly complex for a society with varying ideas regarding morals and ethics, and which is not, in any sense, perfect. In the words of Kant referring to Plato in The Critique of Pure Reason, “The Platonic Republic has become proverbial as an example--and a striking one--of imaginary perfection, such as can exist only in the brain of the idle thinker…[yet] as regards the principles of ethics, of legislation, and of religion…he has vindicated for himself a position of peculiar merit…[in saying that] it is in the highest degree reprehensible to limit or to deduce the laws which dictate what I ought to do, from what is done” (115). Works Cited Aquinas, St. Thomas. St. Thomas Aquinas: Philosophical Texts. Trans. Thomas Gilby. London: Oxford University Press, 1951. Bellomo, Michael. The Stem Cell Divide: The Facts, the Fiction, and the Fear Driving the Greatest Scientific, Political, and Religious Debate of Our Time. New York: AMACOM, 2006. Doe v Obama. Available at: (http://martinpalmer.com/documents/Complaint_.pdf (Accessed 18 April 2011). Green, Ronald. “Stem Cell Research: A Target Article Collection: Part III: Determining Moral Status.” American Journal of Bioethics 2.1, (2002): 20-30. Kant, Immanuel. The Critique of Pure Reason: The Critique of Practical Reason and Other Ethical Treatises the Critique of Judgment. Ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952. Kant, Immanuel. Preface. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals from Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. Trans Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. Athenaeum Library of Philosophy. Available on: http://evansexperientialism.freewebspace.com/kant_groundwork_metaphysics_morals01.htm (Accessed 20 April 2011). Kenny, Anthony. Aristotle on the Perfect Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Schultz, Dawson S. “Stem Cells and the Metaphysics of Choice: A Rationale-or Ruse-for Genetic Research?” The American Journal of Bioethics 2.1, (2002): 1-2 Siegel, Andrew. “Ethics of Stem Cell Research.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008. Available on: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stem-cells/ (Accessed 17 April 2011). Spellman, W.M. John Locke and the Problem of Depravity. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Read More