Is stem cell research morally

permissible?

Michael Lacewingenquiries@alevelphilosophy

.co.uk

Creating embryonic stem cells

• Embryonic stem cell lines are created by removing an inner cell mass from a five- to seven-day-old embryo, a procedure which kills the embryo.

• When properly nurtured, the cells are able to replicate themselves, creating what is called a stem cell line that provides continuing opportunities for research. The undifferentiated cells have the potential to become any type of cell - brain, heart, liver, bone – so they are called ‘pluripotent’ cells.

• The embryos used are surplus ones created by IVF treatment.

• Research on stem cells is almost entirely on embryonic stem cells. Recently, scientists have managed to find other sources for stem cells.

The nature of the argument

• The presumption is that it is morally right, and good, to help human beings where we can

• But, we also think, not by any means• So the question is: is there a good

reason not to help people in this way?

The argument from potential

• Embryos have a right to life because they will become a person with a right to life if allowed to develop

• But:– Sperm and egg prior to conception have this

potential, if allowed to conjoin– Does potential matter? A student, who has

the potential to become a teacher, is not put in charge of lessons until trained as a teacher; you can’t spend money you don’t have yet

– The embryos in stem cell research won’t develop unless implanted - so it doesn’t have the potential to develop on its own

The soul and the sanctity of life

• If people have souls, when does the soul and body come together? Traditional Catholic doctrine: at conception - so the embryo is sacred, as all human life is, straight away

• But:– Two-thirds of embryos spontaneously aborted– Some forms of contraception, including some

forms of the pill, do not prevent conception, but prevent the embryo implanting in the uterus wall

– Until 14 days old, the embryo may split into two, becoming identical twins - one soul or two?

Sanctity and the right to life

• So are embryos sacred? Do they have a right to life? Are these two questions the same?

• Why do human beings have a right to life? Is it something that distinguishes us from animals?– Soul– Reason– Language– Emotional experience– Morality– Just ‘being human’

Dividing people up

• Apart from souls and ‘being human’, all other criteria are possessed by some human beings and not others, e.g. severe mental disability, senile dementia, permanent vegetative state– Yet we don’t think it is permissible to kill them

for the benefit of others• Sentience: primitive consciousness of

perception, pleasure, pain– This begins around 20 weeks, so embryos

don’t have right to life.– Many animals are sentient - do they have a

right to life?

Alternatives

• Alternatives for embryo: unless IVF is prohibited, it will die anyway

• Alternatives to stem cell research: does it matter if there is no other way of producing these benefits?– Not if it is wrong to use embryos - we

wouldn’t use adults in this way

Does the source of stem cells matter?

• Stem cells can now be extracted from amniotic fluid, and most recently, from veins removed in surgery; would it be permissible to use these?

• ‘Induced pluripotent cells’ are cells that have been reprogrammed to become stem cells

• But should we stop research on embryonic stem cells meanwhile?

The importance of the debate

• Even if the answer is that it is morally permissible to use embryos in stem cell research, it would be wrong to do so lightly and without due consideration– Embryos are alive– Embryos are human (of human

material)