What Are the Ethical Postives and Negatives of Stem Cell Research - Term Paper Example

Bioethical issues have taken on a fundamental importance in our society during the past century. As science and technology have collectively pushed the boundaries of what is possible, or what is conceivable, ethics should never be left out of the picture. Although, to quote Immanuel Kant’s famous formulation, an ought implies a can, a can does not imply an ought. In other words, simply because humans have the capability of performing some deed, as novel or interesting as it is, we must first question whether it is the right thing to do. A particularly contentious issue in bioethics is that of stem cells, which is largely opposed by individuals who see the world normatively in one state of mind. Meanwhile, others may see the same issue with another normative viewpoint. The trouble we find in contemporary discourse is when debate occurs around an applied issue like stem cells, without an understanding of how to discuss the more fundamental disagreements between the two parties. Of course, there are both negative and positive ethical implications of stem cell research that must be considered. Nevertheless, they must be considered while acknowledging both sides of the issue, in the context of both dominant normative frameworks. To ban research or to condemn resistance to research are together based on opposed ethical premises that must be fleshed out. In the end, the difference between a normative judgment of stem cells as either “moral” or “immoral” is dependent, or contingent, upon one’s state of reference: a normative theory either deontological (rule-based) or teleological (outcome-based) in nature. Ultimately, it is a difference in what the valuer decides is important that leads him to develop an opinion. According to this, one might be led to believe that the outcome of relieving suffering provides an outright justification for sacrificing embryos. But on the other hand, one might be led to believe that embryos, as potential human beings, need respect as organisms and the rule of destroying human life is undermined by research (Meilaender). These contradictory viewpoints are as fundamental as a distinction typically attributed to political theorist John Rawls. This dichotomy is better known to ethical theorists as the teleological/deontological distinction, which marks the difference between a rule-based account of morality and an outcome-based account. Act utilitarianism, the thought that the right action is that which produces the greatest amount of happiness (an outcome), is a paradigm case of teleological ethics. Divine Command Theory, insofar as it is the belief that the right action is the one that God commands or requires (a rule to be followed), constitutes a paradigm case of deontological ethics. Deontological theories are frequently characterized as rule-based, as Kantian deontology is and as a Divine Command Theory is. A rule-based account is that which “assess the permissibility of actions in terms of whether they conform to some specified set of rules” (Vallentyne 21). Deontological theories, in addition to being described as “rule-based”, are seen as absolutist in the sense that particularly types of actions are obligatory or forbidden absolutely, or in all cases. This ties into the thought that deontologically, an act is right or wrong independent of its outcomes. In other words, all that matters is the fact that the rule is being abided by. For example, a classical case against Kantianism is the protection of the innocent child from the murderer. In order to protect the innocent child from the murderer, the moral agent must lie as a means to the end of saving his or her life. However, this contradicts the rule “don’t lie” as a categorical imperative. Thus, it would not be allowable for the moral agent to lie and thus the child dies as a result. In this case, it is the rule that takes primacy over the outcome in the situated context of the act. From this, we also realize that deontological theories presuppose kinds, or that acts have intrinsic natures that cannot be changed and are absolute. For instance, lying is not one act in circumstance A and then a completely different act in circumstance B. Every act’s “intrinsic nature”, so to speak, determines whether in all cases it is moral or immoral as an act. A teleological theory, in contrast, is one that maximizes some good. Rawls, who really popularized the distinction among moral philosophers, characterizes a teleological theory as those “that direct the agent to maximize the good, where the goodness in question may be that of the action’s outcome, of its anticipated outcome and the like, or even of the action itself” (Vallentyne). The aforementioned theory of act utilitarianism—the paradigm case of teleological ethics—tells us to maximize happiness, or utility, when seeking the good. Utilitarianism says this by placing pleasure or the absence of pain at the center of its ethical system. John Stewart Mill, who brought the theory of utilitarianism into philosophical prominence, was also politically the founder of a broad movement called liberalism, which continues to this day with slightly different ideological viewpoints from Mill’s time in the mid-19th century. As of today, support for the use of stem cells typically comes from more liberal viewpoints and a value of personal social freedoms. The connection between liberal politics and utilitarian ethics is unmistakable, especially in the writings of Mill and his intellectual predecessor Bentham (Riley). In contrast, Divine Command Theory and deontological ethics are used to justify opposition to the use of embryonic stem cells in research. Their justification is the rule that human life is precious and should not be interfered with by being used as a means of pursuing an end. (Christians and other theorists, of course, typically justify the claim that all human life is precious with theological premises.) The deontologist viewpoint would find the utilitarian’s use of the embryo (a supposed instance of human life) abhorrent insofar as it is being used as a means to the end of maximizing some good like happiness. The utilitarian support for the use of human embryos is for the consequences of doing so, which deontologists that adhere to Kantian or Divine theories. It is the consequences, says the utilitarian, that all medical research is conducted to realize: finding benefits that will outweigh the costs. Also, an embryo which cannot feel pain or suffer during its use as a research subject cannot be taken into consideration when looking at whether or not the act is allowable. In contrast, the suffering of those dying from gradual, neurodegenerative diseases must be taken into consideration. The deontologist does not believe in many of the teleologists’ premises with regard to consequences and outcomes. It is the rule that takes primacy: research into medicines and treatments ought not to be conducted with the hope that some good outcome will result. The end, they say, does not justify the means. The suffering of terminally ill patients, dying from diseases treatable or even curable with embryonic stem cells, is irrelevant. Again, it is a human life—the embryo’s human life—that is at stake: it is unacceptable, ethically, to allow the death of one to save the life of another. In other words, there is no good consequence when the consequence of one act (the death of the embryo) cancels out another (the life of the terminally ill patient). Nevertheless, this argument presupposes that an embryo is indeed a human being and not a potential human being. Although drawing the distinction between human and non-human in the course of development may be arbitrary, that is not to say there is no point. It may only be the case that it is not epistemologically possible to know that information. This argument, that we cannot draw a clear, non-arbitrary line between conception and personhood, or adulthood, is one often utilized by opponents of stem cell research as something justifying the position that such research is morally wrong. They say the development of an embryo to a fetus to a child is continuous and not separable into stages. However, by analogy, this argument is not entirely persuasive, for an acorn is not equivalent to a tree, and a tree is not necessarily the same as the acorn from which it developed. Accordingly, when a squirrel eats an acorn (as in a researcher destroying a blastocyst), it is not equivalent to a tree felled by a storm (as in an adult being hit by a bus). By these tokens, exactly as an acorn is a potential oak tree, an embryo is a potential human being. Potential, in this case, is to be contrasted with actual, which is a very important distinction to bear in mind in all aspects of life. According to the utilitarian, there is a moral difference to be found between the potential and the actual, and a blastocyst is a potential moral patient (Sandel). Recently, a liberal administration has loosened bans on stem cell research, which was met by resistance from more conservative leanings in some state legislatures. When asked about his state’s opposition, State Senator Ralph Hudgens of Georgia said, “I just think its immoral to create life and destroy it in the name of science. In Nazi Germany they did experiments with human beings. I dont want to see that done here” (Osbourne). Again, there is the possibility at a human embryo is indeed an instance of human life. Nevertheless, the issue remains undecided between teleologists and deontologists; the former note that an embryo cannot suffer and cannot be an entity that we must take seriously in applying the principle of utility, for there simply is no utility to be maximized. Utility can only be minimized by sacrificing the interests of a living, feeling, dying Alzheimer’s patient for the non-interests of a blastocyst. Ultimately, the differences in the teleologist’s position and that of the deontologist reduce to a difference in their respective value systems, and philosophical premises. One additional note must be made, however, in a talk about general “stem cells”. There is a distinction to be made between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells; it is the latter which raise moral objections to the prospect of destroying embryos for scientific research. Taking adult stem cells, however, does not pose a threat to human life in the same way that taking them from a developing blastocyst does. Because it does not pose the same risk, it seems as though there are no negative ethical implications of utilizing adult stem cells in practice. However, the usability of such cells appears, at first, to be far less than those at the beginning of development. Nevertheless, recent developments in research reveal far more possibilities for the use of adult stem cells than previously thought (Coppi, Bartsch and Siddiqui). Considering these recent advancements, it may be the case that adult stem cells are the ideal choice: all of the possible utilitarian benefits of stem cell therapies on all kinds of individuals, without the need to destroy embryos that many see as human life albeit not in human form. Ethical theories are divided into two broad categories: teleological and deontological, and the debate concerning embryonic stem cells conforms perfectly to this distinction. On one hand, those who oppose stem cell research do so because of the intrinsic nature of the act, and the rule that opposes it. The act referred to here is the act of ending human life, which is the crucial premise of their argument. On the other hand, teleologists view the morally right action as that one which maximizes some good. In the case of utilitarians, that good is happiness. Utilitarians desire to push forward stem cell research on the ethical basis that it will maximize happiness in feeling, living human beings suffering with diseases that might be treated or cured with stem cells. This roughly corresponds to the liberal support for scientific research in contemporary discourse. The difficulty in finding common ground between the deontological and teleological viewpoints is the differences in their normativity: the structure of their value systems. While one group places a high value on the rule of protecting human life under all circumstances, the other puts pleasure or the absence of pain in that role. Reconciling the two positions on the applied issue must occur in a higher level of philosophical discourse on the underlying theories both sides employ in their arguments. Until that happens, both will simply talk past each other, and nothing will be resolved. There is a common perception that the deontologist position, inspired by religious beliefs, is impervious to reason insofar as it is a faith-based position. In many ways this is true: there is no way to “disprove” someone’s faith, either by showing its fallacies or attacking its premises. However, most people are aware of the practicality of some acts relate to others, and the fact that although we would like to think we occupy an ideal moral world, sometimes rules break down. In certain circumstances, following moral rules simply is not a practical solution. Most people know intuitively that suffering is more undesirable than the violation of a moral rule or a categorical imperative, which seems to lend credence to the liberal, or utilitarian, viewpoint. Works Cited Coppi, Paolo De, et al. "Isolation of amniotic stem cell lines with potential for therapy." Nature Biotechnology 25 (2007): 100-106. Accessed via Nature.com. Meilaender, Gilbert. "The Point of a Ban: Or, How to Think about Stem Cell Research." The Hastings Center Report 31:1 (2001): 9-16. Accessed via JSTOR. Osbourne, James. States Consider Harder Line on Stem Cell Research. 24 March 2009. 28 March 2009 . Accessed via Google. Riley, Jonathan. Liberal Utilitarianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Accessed via Google Books. Sandel, Michael J. Embryo ethics. 8 April 2007. 26 March 2009 . Accessed via Google. Vallentyne, Peter. "The Teleological/Deontological Distinction." The Journal of Value Inquiry 21:21 (1987): 21-32. Accessed via Springer. Read More