Bioethics regarding Spare Embryos - Essay Example

Bioethics: Spare Embryos At all costs we must avoid any double talk when dealing with the bioethical issue of using spare embryos for scientific research. The task ahead is not easy to dissect as there are many conflictive arguments on both sides of the coin. Proponents and opponents abound in the same manner as the pros and cons proliferate with deep and urging intensity. We must take a stand thinking over all the possible aspects involved in this controversy. At the end of the road, all of us will be winners in this debate as we are growing up in wisdom and understanding when we embark in any meaningful matter. Going to the roots of the problem, we can see that everything comes up to the question of the existence of God for those who do not believe, or the extent of His sovereignty in human affairs for those who already believe in God but at the same time are in favor of using spare embryos in scientific research. We have to listen to all sides in order to get a wider idea of the complexity of this debate. But we also have to be firm in our position once we have reached a sound and factual conclusion. That way we avoid any kind of hypocrisy, and there will not be any double talk in our grasp of the issues at hand. Scientists, lawyers, policymakers, theologians, ethicists, and lay people have something to say about this matter. Many have spoken their minds raising up high their heated arguments. All of them have the right to give their opinions, and we will listen to some of them as we move forward up to our concluding words. We have to keep in mind the fact that at the end God is the centre of the debate. According to the position that we might defend, human freedom of choice becomes an alibi for behaving as we please, or it is the subject of a higher dimension in the eyes of God. When dealing with new reproductive technologies, we should study the bioethical aspects of such new instruments of Science. The mere production of spare embryos as well as their use for scientific research raises some serious bioethical questions that need to be answered. Just from the natural point of view, we have arguments in favor of showing respect for any kind of embryos, even if they are classified as "pre-embryos". C. W. Kischer gives us some useful information about the idea behind the term "conception", and its relationship with the beginning of human life: ""When animal experiments were done in the 18th and 19th centuries, deductive reasoning led to the conclusion that life began at conception; and, finally, this was observed directly by the first in-vitro fertilization procedures with human gametes some 40 years ago" (Kischer 2002). Following this kind of reasoning -not taking God into account, just from the natural point of view- Kischer arrives to this conclusion: "We should respect a microscopic human embryo because at that time it is an integrated whole organism, just as the human is at every moment in time until death. Every human embryo deserves as much respect as you or I because it is formed as a new individual human life within the continuum of life as a manifestation of NATURAL LAW!" (Kischer 2002) (Kischer's own emphasis in capital letters). Kischer speaks about a "continuum of life", and there are three different opposing views on this idea as R. Hoedemaekers explains in detail. He states that there are three fundamental positions with regard to the moral status of a new unborn human life: the first one is "continuity in development", and this view gives personhood to the embryo from the very beginning, that is, from conception, with the same degree of value and dignity as a human being; the second one is "discontinuity in development", and this position treats the embryos from two different angles, first as a property at conception, and much later as a person, depending on the age in development; and the third one is "incremental or gradual development" that assigns a lesser to a greater degree in personhood to the embryo, starting at conception and ending at death of the adult person. As we can see, the first position is the one adopted by most of believers, most notably Christian believers (Catholics, Protestants, and Universalists) in Western society. An interesting stand is taken by S. A. Muscati when he studies this debate under the perspective of its legal dimension. "A legal focus on protecting human life per se would mean, by extension, that such protection ought to be conferred upon any form that either embodies, or at least has the potential to embody human life. Included would be in vitro embryos, regardless of their age or any another developmental criteria" (Muscati 2002, para. 25). Then he follows up extending his ideas with the next epistemic statement: "It is at conception, after all, when all the genetic information necessary to create a distinct human individual is attained. This genetic code remains fixed and unchanged throughout the development of the embryo" (Muscati 2002, para. 27). But against such arguments there is fierce opposition from secular scientists, policymakers, ethicists, and activists. Their efforts go forward to take even more ground that they already have in procuring funding for scientific research as long as it would translate into the benefit of Science or people in search of health through the promise of the new technologies providing cure for their ailments. We really care for the scientific and technological advances in favor of Medicine as well as the suffering of all people in need of medical assistance, but we should first be sure if our decision-making foundations are ethical or morally sound under the eyes of God, and -in case we are not believers- at least under the eyes of Society. Among the proponents of the use of spare embryos for scientific research we find the figures of John Harris and Peter A. Singer. Their positions are quite firm and clear. They are bioethicists with strong ideals on behalf of scientific and technological advances. Harris abides by the following tenet: "the principle that it is better to do something good than to do nothing good should be re-emphasised. Surely no one could believe that it could be better (more ethical) to allow the fetal material to go to waste than to use it for some good purpose" (Harris 1998). Note that Harris speaks about "fetal material" giving the implicit idea that it is a non-person. Critically analysing his principle we are able to find a half-true in its founding mechanism. To respect the embryos as persons or as God's creatures with intrinsic rights and values is also a matter of doing something good because that way we don't try to play being God by discarding or destroying or doing whatever we want to the spare embryos who deserve respect as life-giving entities with a distinctive personhood. Even the idea of "spare" is wrong. There should not be any left-over, or surplus, or extra embryos as we will see later on. We agree with Harris when he states the following idea: "In so far as decisions to reproduce in particular ways or even using particular technologies constitute decisions concerning central issues of value, then arguably the freedom to make them is not only guaranteed by the United States Constitution but by the constitution (written or not) of any democratic society, unless the state has a compelling reason for denying them that control. To establish such a compelling reason the state would have to show that more was at stake than the fact that a majority found the ideas disturbing or even disgusting" (Harris 1998). The only problem with this line of thinking is the fact that the Unites States of America is a God-fearing country since its very foundation. And the same fact applies to most of the "democratic societies" that Harris has in mind. Most of the countries of the world are officially God-believing societies. That is factual. There is a wide variety of creeds, but in essence a very high percentage of the "democratic societies" believe implicitly or explicitly, directly or indirectly, in a common Creator for all Humankind. On the other hand, Peter A. Singer makes the following disturbing statement about the embryo: "It is important for others, though, to keep in mind that there are no sperm involved in therapeutic cloning and what is being destroyed is a six-day-old "embryo" that is a clump of a few dozen cells the size of the head of a pin" (Singer 2005). It is obvious that any quantitative or qualitative measure is not valid at all when measuring the bioethical value of an entity like the embryo, a life-giving being with distinct and undeniable personhood. And the embryo is a life-giving entity that must not be regarded as a biological property like many researchers, ethicists, scientists and policymakers wrongly think they are. But we find even much more disturbing the next utilitarian idea suggested by Singer: "In the long run, though, it is likely that Canadian medicine will eventually catch up because Korea will be perfectly willing to sell stem cell technologies to Canada. However, we will not regain the opportunity to turn the talents of our best scientists into economic growth for our country in this emerging field." Here the "economic" concern stated by Singer seems completely unethical as it considers the biological entity called "embryo" as an object to be used for profit, not as a life-giving entity, sacred in his/her own unique personhood. On the other hand, the Catholic Church has been coherent all the way since the very beginning of this debate. Its position against any disguised or undisguised form of abortion has been consistent throughout the years. That is the case of former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) and Alberto Bovone, Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia, acting as Prefect and Secretary, respectively, when they published on February 22, 1987, the Catholic document entitled 'Donum Vitae' in which they made a compelling defense of the dignity of human life in any of its different manifestations. Briefly they stated the following idea: "Methods of observation or experimentation which damage or impose grave and disproportionate risks upon embryos obtained in vitro are morally illicit for the same reasons every human being is to be respected for himself, and cannot be reduced in worth to a pure and simple instrument for the advantage of others. It is therefore not in conformity with the moral law deliberately to expose to death human embryos obtained 'in vitro'" (Ratzinger, J., and Bovone, A. 1987). Fourteen years later, Bishop Sean O. O'Malley addressed the same topic with the following arguments: "As in the case of the production of clones for research purposes, the harvesting of the discarded embryos for research represents a conscious choice to use living human beings as mere research material. Sadly, some people would have pragmatism trump morality. It is encouraging that many states have legislation in place which protects the embryo and makes embryonic stem cell research a felony" (O'Malley, Sean O. 2001). As we can see from these statements by Catholic authorities, the Catholic Church has played a leading role in the controversy over the use of spare embryos for scientific research and its related conflictive issues. Late Pope John Paul II also expressed his ideas concerning these urging topics. Back in 1995, John Paul II made known to the Catholic Church and the entire world his encyclical letter entitled "Evangelium Vitae". All along this insightful document the recently deceased Pope repeated what has been said by the Catholic Church and its authorities during all the course of its history. Let's take a look at some of the main ideas of this encyclical letter. On paragraph 60, John Paul II paraphrases Psalms 139 in some of its verses: "Human life is sacred and inviolable at every moment of existence, including the initial phase which precedes birth. All human beings, from their mothers' womb, belong to God who searches them and knows them, who forms them and knits them together with his own hands, who gazes on them when they are tiny shapeless embryos and already sees in them the adults of tomorrow whose days are numbered and whose vocation is even now written in the "book of life" (cf. Ps 139: 1, 13-16)" (John Paul II 1995, para. 60). On paragraphs 61 and 62, John Paul II recounts the historical passage of the Christian Faith in favor of the dignity of human life even in its earliest periods of existence as pre-embryos or embryos. The first and foremost foundation of these principles is to be found in the Sacred Scriptures. All along the Bible we find a loving God who cares for His creatures since the time of conception or even long before in the previous "Eternity" before He created the Universe as we can deductively conclude from the foreknowledge of God (I Peter 1:2). John Paul II summarises the Christian Tradition after the Primitive Church and the biblical times up to the Fathers, Doctors and Pastors of the Church as well as documents and events in modern times giving as examples the names of Athenagoras, Tertullian, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, The Second Vatican Council, 1917 Code of Canon Law, and the Papal Magisterium, as living and faithful evidence of the consistent and coherent position of the Catholic Church in favor of any manifestation of human life. (John Paul II 1995, paras. 61 and 62). On paragraph 63, John Paul II states the following that can be readily seen in our thematic corpus about spare embryos: "This evaluation of the morality of abortion is to be applied also to the recent forms of intervention on human embryos which, although carried out for purposes legitimate in themselves, inevitably involve the killing of those embryos. This is the case with experimentation on embryos, which is becoming increasingly widespread in the field of biomedical research and is legally permitted in some countries" (John Paul II 1995, para. 63). The clear picture drawn in this encyclical letter is still valid, and it must be taken into consideration when dealing with the topical contents of this debate over embryonic stem cell research. But the stand taken by Protestant Christians is also very interesting to ponder and to consider with diligence as Protestant Christians tend to be extremely scriptural when it comes to dissecting any topic. In this line of thinking, Steve Lagoon speaking on behalf of Christian Apologetics Ministries (C.A.M.) states the following simple idea: "I share the opinion of many Christian Bioethicists that any third party involvement in reproduction is a form of adultery. If a child cannot be conceived with only the genetic material of both marital parents, the child should not be conceived at all" (Lagoon (n. d.)). This is so obvious that we wonder how we could not think about it before. When dealing with spare embryos used for scientific research, and its related themes, Lagoon gives biblical arguments against such practices in the following scriptural verses with their corresponding explanations: 1.- Man alone is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:2628). (). 2.- Man has been given dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:2628) (). 3.- God is the creator of mankind, and is sovereign over the lives and death's of mankind (Job 1:21, Jeremiah 10:23). (). 4.- The human Body is a sacred gift of God that will be resurrected (1 Corinthians 15, Romans 8:23, Philippians 3:21). (). 5.- Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. (I Corinthians 6:12; 10:23). (). From all these assertions we can undoubtedly see the seriousness of the matter at hand. An embryo is the unit of measure for human life. He/she is a life-giving organism on his/her own. He/she is a real person, distinct from the parents, unique as a separate entity with full life-giving potential. The problem is not only the matter of using the spare embryos for scientific research, but the troublesome existence of such spare embryos in the first place. The concept of spare, left-over, surplus or extra embryos brings many bioethical issues into question. And much more than bioethical issues, they are just theoetical concerns about the very meaning of life that cannot be taken for granted. We must answer those questions, and then we will see clearly the amazing wisdom of God behind any of His designs and purposes. Christian Universalists believe in Universal Salvation for all Humankind, and their theological insight is a source of hope based on the unconditional love of God. From their point of view, there will be a definite solution for all the worries, pains, sufferings and sorrows of Humankind. Their cosmovision could be of help for those people in need of a different approach to this conflictive issue of Biogenetics. (God's Truth For Today.Org 2005). Besides the theological answers that we might find among Catholics, Protestants and Universalists, there are other pathways along the road in the field of Traditional Medicine as well as Alternative Medicine. For example, 4Life's Transfer Factor seems to be a novel paradigm in dealing with biological disorders by strengthening the immunological system capacity to fight disease through the power of its own renewed resources (4Life.Com (n.d.)). Scientific research along this line of medical knowledge could be beneficial in the long run to everybody. There are also many alternative paths for procuring health in the realm of Alternative Medicine that could be explored openly without any negative bioethical implications like that arising from Biogenetics, reproductive technologies, abortion, surrogate mothers, spare embryos, stem cell research, and the like. We have to face the future with an optimistic frame of mind. Above all, let's be factual. Let's avoid any kind of double talk. The embryos are a precious gift of God. References God's Truth For Today, (revised 15 July, 2005), (ed.) Condon, R. C., viewed 8 October, 2005, . 4Life, (n.d.), 'Transfer Factor', viewed 9 October, 2005, . Harris, J., 'Rights and reproductive choice', (1998), Cardiff University, Cardiff Centre for Ethics, Law and Society, viewed 6 October, 2005, . Hoedemaekers, R., 'Human Embryos, Human Ingenuity, and Government Policy', Ethics & Medicine, Volume 19:2 (n. d.), viewed 6 October, 2005, . John Paul II, 'Evangelium Vitae, Encyclical letter on the value and inviolability of human life', (25 March, 1995), viewed 8 October, 2005, . Kischer, Ph.D., C. W. 'Let's be factual about the human embryo',.( 28 January, 2002), American Bioethics Advisory Comission, American Life League, Inc., viewed 6 October, 2005, . Lagoon, S. 'What ever happened to the Hippocratic Oath', (n. d.), Christian Apologetics Ministries (C.A.M.), Minneapolis, St. Paul, MN, viewed 7 October, 2005, . Muscati, S.A., Duke Law and Technology Review, (12 October, 2002), 'Defining a new ethical standard for human in vitro embryos in the context of stem cell research', Issue 0026, . O'Malley, Bishop Sean O., "In Vitro Fertilization: Ethical implications & alternatives', Pastoral Letter, (9 November, 2001), viewed 8 October, 2005, . Ratzinger, J. (Cardinal) and Bovone, A., 'Donum Vitae: Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation', (22 February, 1987), Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, viewed 9 October, 2005, . Singer, P.A., 'Canada needs therapeutic cloning', (24 May, 2005), University of Toronto, Joint Centre For Bioethics, viewed 6 October, 2005, . Read More

 

Read More