« Why The Christian Right Is Wrong | Main | I Miss Home »
August 29, 2006
More On Stem Cells
Scott commented on my recent post about stem cells. He asked if I could comment on the Catholic bishops' hesitation regarding manipulation of stem cells and what my take on it is. That got a lot of thoughts running through my head again, so if I may, and I think I can given that it's my blog : D, I'm gonna jot down some more than a response to Scotty's question.
The bishop's use of the term "manipulation" strikes me as misinformed, to begin with. From what I can gather, they oppose manipulating embryos for scientific aims since embryos are living people. I'm just not convinced that's what they really think. If you extend this logic, that means no people--embryo, child, adult--ought have any of their cells worked upon because they are fully living and not to be used for scientific aims. I think you can see where I'm going with this. Either they need to find a different way of phrasing their position, or they are accusing countless Catholic-run hospitals, medical schools, etc. to break communion with Church teaching on this issue, because those establishments do vast research on human cells daily.
Now, were their argument against "destruction" of the embryo, I think it'd be a more logically sound one. Indeed, that seems to me what their objection to previous ESC research has been--such research is not permissible because it necessitates the destruction of an embryo, which is a living person. However, that's what I find so appealing about this new technique--it specifically avoids destruction of an embryo. Rather, it samples tissue of a living organism for further examination while allowing that organism to go on living. And while research is limited, a sample size of 2000 children who have survived undergoing the same approach during IVF makes a strong argument that these embryos are not harmed, or "modifiied", by this new approach. Have I made my point on this nuanced topic clear? I hope so. Please let me know if I haven't.
As I mentioned, there are a few other aspects of this topic that have been bouncing in my head since I saw Scott's comment. Continuing with the Catholic bishops' reticence toward modification, I think much of the worry is that human cloning might come about as a result of techniques using ESCs. But I think it's important here to note what the debate here is about. At this point it's about whether or not federal money can be granted to fund such research, and I'm pretty sure strong safeguards against full cloning of humans and gross genetic engineering have been passed. (If I'm wrong on this, PLEASE let me know! I don't have time to find the specific legislation.) So, in my mind, grandstanding against modification during a debate about the allocation of federal grant dollars isn't really going to stop people who want to clone or do genetic engineering. If a human is ever cloned, and let's just hope that never happens, it's almost certainly going to be at a privately-financed lab somewhere in a poorly-regulated country. It seems to me that the doomsayers warning of the production of a new, genetically altered superhuman race have been effectively silenced, and I think it's for good reason.
Another thought modification brings to mind here is the opposition in Roman Catholicism to in vitro fertilization. In the Vatican's eyes, sex is very functional; it's strictly for procreation, and any recreational sex not intending children is irresponsible and sinful. Hence, the teachings against contraception. In terms of IVF, conception is removed from sexual intercourse, so the church has come out against it. Now, I don't think this is the post to debate this opposition to IVF, but I do want to suggest that the Vatican ought to come out more strongly in saying what its real opposition is in order to clarify the logic of its positions. I fear that focusing more on the issue of stem cells has dangerously meandered into dangerously partisan territory. I fear that making its teachings clear, it is positioning itself in ways that can too easily be seen as acting as chaplain for the Republican party. And I think we can all agree that's a pretty bad thing.
Finally, as is often the case, I find myself grappling with utilitarian ethics when trying to discern the place of Christians when they work in the sciences. I think I'm coming to the conclusion that a cautious, muted utilitarianism is acceptable when approached within a faithfulness to the Gospel. For instance, I think an often poorly scrutinized utilitarian ethic motivates people to get IVF in the first place. It seems the goal of parenting a child biologically their own is worth the sacrifice of many fertilized embryos. But, in my opinion, I think it's acceptable for a Christian to utilize would-be-discarded cells resulting from poorly thought out actions to try and eliminate suffering in the world. (Side note, I know it's fashionable among pro-lifers, even dubya, to bring up the so-called "snowflake children." The number of these children--around 100--pathetically pales in comparison to the number of embryos currently frozen and slated to be discarded--460,000. .02%? It's tough for me to take such arguments seriously given these numbers, and I think we can essentially considered these effectively dead when not used for IVF. Even more, many won't ever survive the freeze/thaw process and are thus actually dead.) Jesus healed the sick, and as I humbly try to emulate that profession, I think it's morally acceptable to use these frozen embryos for research, given that I don't have much luck working miracles. ; )
In addition to the narrow utilitarian ethic of IVF, the Vatican's seemingly utilitarian view of sex strikes me as wrong as well. Each time my wife and I have relations (I have always wanted to publish that! Haha!), we certainly aren't aiming or hoping for children. And I think that's how God intends it. And I have a problem with this utilitarian love being used up as a standard against which we can condemn IVF labs. (This was an argument by a bishop quoted in the original article.) If we continue the utilitarian ethic of procreation, I think these labs have a far better record of "love", given how destructively "unloving" a female's uterus can be, in these utilitarian terms. It's an infrequently discussed, ugly fact that many, many conceptions result in very early spontaneous abortions. In fact, we can't accurately quantify it given that these often occur before a woman knows she's conceived.
Finally, to wrap this up in an oh..., Eddie Izzard ending, sort of way. I think there is a puzzling inconsistency in the way the Catholic church regards medicine, science, etc. and life. Remember the utilitarian maintenance of life advocated in the Terry Schiavo mess. Ms. Schiavo certainly would not have been breathing for several years had it not been for medicine. If a utilitarian application of medicine was appropriate to save/prolong her life, why is it not acceptable the save/prolong the lives of millions? Just some food for though. I don't claim to have all the answers, but these are some of the things I've been thinking about.
Posted by mattalexander at August 29, 2006 5:34 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.justenough.org/mt/traX0r_me.cgi/301
Comments
Thanks Matt. I would love to post a bit more but my module is takin up all my time. Hopefully I'll get to it soon. I need to chew on the subject a bit anyways as I am a bit ignorant.
Peace,
Scott
Posted by: Scott at August 31, 2006 4:40 PM
I believe that steam cell research is a good thing if it helps people. Except I disagree with the fact that it is taking a babies life or freezing the embryo. I believe that is wrong but I think there is a safer way like take it as yoiu need it so this way you don't need to freeze it and if you take it from the placenta it might be better for everyone.
Posted by: Jillian at September 21, 2008 2:38 PM
