Human embryo research destroys life
Charles Rice
Right or Wrong?
Let's talk about your tax dollars at work. On Aug. 23 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued final guidelines on federal funding for research on "human pluripotent stem cells derived from human embryos (technically known as human embryonic stem cells)." The studies will be funded "only if the cells were derived (without federal funds) from human embryos that were created for the purposes of fertility treatment and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment."
The cells can be used to form any tissue of the human body except the placenta. Scientists hope the cells could play a role in curing Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, burns and other ailments.
There is just one catch. The human embryo, preserved by freezing, is not just a mass of cells. It is a human being. As Fr. Joseph C. Howard, Jr., of the American Bioethics Advisory Committee, put it, "to obtain stem cells from a human embryo necessitates the removal of the inner cell mass which each and every time destroys a human life."
"Even if NIH doesn't grant funds to destroy human embryos," said C. Ben Mitchell, senior fellow of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity," it is encouraging those who do by producing a `market' for those cells." In this process, human beings are reduced to objects of utility and ultimately commerce. A trade already exists in fetal tissue and we can expect one to develop in embryonic stem cells.
It might be argued that these frozen embryos would be discarded and die anyway. But how is killing them for their cells different from what the Nazis did in harvesting the organs of Jews and other living inmates who were going to die anyway? And why not harvest the heart, kidneys, etc., of living persons on death row? And comatose patients whom nobody wants?
"For the first time in history, our federal government will promote research in which developing human beings are destroyed," said Richard Doerflinger, of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Doerflinger also noted that,
"The claim that embryonic stem-cell research is needed for new medical advances has been rebutted by numerous breakthroughs in adult stem-cell research and other alternatives. Last week ... NIH-funded researchers announced that they can produce a virtually limitless supply of new nerve cells for transplants from patients' own bone-marrow stem cells. This approach `overcomes the ethical and immunologic concerns associated with the use of fetal tissue.'"
"The Catholic Church is not opposed to adult stem-cell research or stem-cell research on umbilical cords because these procedures do not endanger life," said Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia. "But the only way to acquire the embryonic stem cells is to destroy a human life. Must we end one human life attempting to benefit another? Research to treat a wide range of diseases and disorders that afflict many people is ... a noble venture, but never at the expense of human life. It is absolutely forbidden to directly destroy one innocent human being to help another."
In our pagan culture of death, we regard the intentional infliction of death as a legitimate and optional problem-solving technique. And law is a matter of will rather than reason. Whatever the State decrees is the law, unlimited by any higher standard of justice. In that culture of death, the human person is defined in functional terms. He is valued not for what he is, "an immortal being endowed with unalienable rights by his Creator," but for what he can do or for how he can be used for the benefit of others. We started down this road when, through the contraceptive ethic, we made man rather than God the arbiter of when and how life shall begin and, with abortion and euthanasia, of when and how it shall end. Tax-funded research on human embryonic stem cells is a predictable application of this utilitarian logic. And the end is not yet in sight.
"Not since the exploits of German science in the earlier part of this century," wrote columnist Paul Greenberg, "have so many rationalizations been produced for experimenting on human tissue." Don't think of it as a human being in embryo. And if all these sophisticated rationalizations still don't quite convince, then remember that they probably sounded a lot better in the original German. And ignore that still small voice in the back of your mind that keeps whispering: "This is wrong."
Charles Rice is a professor in the Notre Dame Law School. His column appears every other Tuesday.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Tuesday, October 10, 2000
