Brian’s Perspective - Old Blog

I don’t do a lot of writing that covers ethics. This is not going to be an in depth look at the whole stem cell debate. As a Christian, there are obvious ethical dilemmas that this technology creates. We have the technology to harvest stem cells that could conceivably be used to cure a long list of illnesses.

The hypothesis of stem-cells is actually pretty good (in my opinion), but it is the method used to acquire them that I do not like. These stem cells are taken from an embryo, and, in the process, the embryo dies. To me, it is not “just an embryo” (a non-living blob of tissue) that dies, but a living human being. At the same time, I love the idea of curing a host of illnesses using stem cells and my heart really wishes there was a way to proceed down this promising path without killing the unborn. But to others, me and my religion are in the way of progress. To them this is a non-issue: an embryo is not a living person, and, therefore, harvesting stem cells involves no moral dilemma.

It is the definition of Embryo as non-human being and the question of when “life” begins that are central to this ethical quandary and the root cause of the stem cell research stagnation in America. U.S. research is not being funded with Federal money for production of new stem cells because of these moral concerns.

New Stem Cell Method Safe for Embryo

Aug. 24, 2006 — Stem cells can be harvested without harming the embryos that donate them, Advanced Cell Technology scientists report.

The new technology is actually an old one. For years they have been biopsying embryos that are used for in vitro fertilization. This biospy process is called Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD). The full-spectrum of clinical use for PGD has its own sundry ethical dilemmas that I do not care to enumerate here. What I like about PGD for stem cell research is that an embryo can be “biopsied” and the stem cell lines then used for research without the destruction of human life. This is a great idea! It allows the research to continue for one group and for another group to maintain their view of life beginning at conception.

Yet, the move is seen by many as more a political win that a potential ethical solution. The article goes on to say:

“This technique overcomes this hurdle and has the potential to play a critical role in the advancement of regenerative medicine,” Dartmouth ethicist Ronald Green, PhD, head of ACTS’s ethics advisory board, said in a news release. “It also appears to be a way out of the current political impasse in this country and elsewhere.”

I realize a lot of people are tired of debating ethics with fundamentalists who will never change their minds. But if we are going to be a country that tolerates all views and cares for all people, then should we ever resolve to ignore someone’s ethical quandary? Should we not invest our resources and technologies into finding alternative methods that will not ethically violate the moral code of our people or a subset of our people?

We have the same problem in the church with one group of Christians who view something as a non-issue and another group, sees it as a core issue, being in conflict. Maybe the church should spend more time learning the meaning of,

As a prisoner for the Lord, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing ¹ with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. - Ephesians 4:1-3

Once the church learns to tolerate each other, allowing each of us to grow in our knowledge of God, then we can help the world learn to tolerate each other. Maybe then true progress in a lot of fields of study could be made and the politics would be less important.

But then who am I to argue ethics?

You may also want to read: Coaxing More from Adult Stem Cells.

1. This word is actually tolerate. That is, you have to put up with someone who doesn’t agree with your viewpoint.[↩]