Morality of Stem Cell Research

The President of the United States closes speeches with “God Bless America.” The Pledge of Allegiance includes the words “under God.” “In God We Trust” is printed on the back of every paper bill, no matter the denomination. Separation of church and state is a founding principle of the American democracy, but the enacting of this doctrine in America’s towns and communities is far from black and white. Science and religion are frequently at odds, and ethical concerns that are often religiously-based can shape public policy, from textbook adoption to re-search funding. Nowhere is the influence of religion shaping policy more clearly seen than in the area of stem cell research. Ethical concerns and strong opposition from religious groups have hampered the development of stem cell research in this country. In doing so, these groups have prided the lives of abstract, unborn people over actual, living people—fathers, wives, children—whose lives may have been improved or even saved by breakthroughs made in stem cell research.

During the eight years of his presidency, George W. Bush restricted federal funds for stem cell research where the cells were derived from human embryos, citing his deeply held reli-gious beliefs. Since embryonic stem cell research is the area which promises the most scientific advancement, experts argue that this drove many of America’s best stem cell researchers to other countries in order to be able to continue their research unfettered (Park 2012). In March of 2009, President Obama signed an executive order that loosened many of Bush’s restrictions on stem cell research. However, by this time the US has begun to lag behind other countries in stem cell research. Matthew Hanes, an American soldier serving in Afghanistan, was shot by a sniper two years ago, damaging his spinal cord. Upon returning to the US, he began researching stem cell therapies and ultimately decided to have an operation in China, because the technology there is so far ahead of that in the United States (Gross 2014). The lack of stem cell research over the past decade, far from protecting American citizens, is coming back to hurt us; we are falling be-hind other countries, resulting in a loss of jobs, and our own citizens are having to seek health solutions elsewhere.

Those who argue against stem cell research do so using a false equivalency, equating it to abortion (which they then equate to murder). Although much attention is focused by religious groups on stem cell research, little is said about the process of in vitro fertilization, in which thousands of embryos are destroyed; for that matter, not every zygote implants after conception. Those opposed to stem cell research, but not in vitro fertilization would argue that the two pro-cesses have separate goals—one to create life, and one to end it—but the fact remains that, intent aside, embryos are lost either way. Religious groups also oppose the use of blastocysts, which precede the embryonic stage and are essentially a collection of cells, no different from a collection of skin cells. If a group of cells can be referred to as human life and granted human protections, this has wide-ranging implications for procedures in the medical field, such as transplants or implants. Claiming that life begins at conception is ideologically simple, but scientifically complex.

Robert Orr (2009) discusses the four major foundations of any conscious health practi-tioner. He names four items: nonmaleficence (the Hippocratic “do no harm”); beneficence, acting in the patient’s best interest; autonomy, allowing patients to make their own decisions; and jus-tice, that all patients should be treated the same. Those who believe that life begins at conception believe they are protecting the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves, who deserve jus-tice. However, considering what an embryo is, scientifically, these conditions cannot be satis-fied. Embryos are not sentient; they cannot make their own decisions. They therefore have no “best interest”—anti-stem cell advocates are presupposing an interest for them, to live. Truthfully, they are reflecting their own best interests, not those of the embryos, and in doing so, ignoring the needs of Americans beset by painful, debilitating conditions.

References

Gross, G. (2014, March 23). Wounded Pa. soldier seeks Chinese stem cell cure. SFGate. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Wounded-Pa-soldier-seeks-Chinese-stem-cell-cure-5342115.php

Orr, R. D. (2009). Medical ethics and the faith factor: a handbook for clergy and health-care professionals. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.

Park, A. (2012, August 20). George W. Bush and the stem cell research funding ban TIME.com. Time. Retrieved from http://healthland.time.com/2012/08/21/legitimate-rape-todd-akin-and-other-politicians-who-confuse-science/slide/bush-bans-stem-cell-research