This week, it is widely expected that President Obama will sign an executive order removing restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. As Catholics, we believe in the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death; and because human embryos are destroyed in the process of embryonic stem cell research, such research is immoral. It is important, however, to point out that the Church is in favor of stem cell research (i.e. adult stem cell research), but is against embryonic stem research because of the destruction of human embryos.
There are many issues pertinent to the bioethics of embryonic stem cell research, but the one I want to mention in this post is the issue of moral status. An individual has moral status when one is protected by moral norms; norms such as the prohibition against killing innocent human beings. Throughout human history, prevailing power structures have asserted that certain groups of individuals have either no moral status or reduced moral status. One of the most obvious examples in the history of our country is the lack or reduced moral status given to the slaves. And presently, the prevailing power structures have declared that human embryos have no or reduced moral status.
This assertion is often made by making a distinction between a human being and a human person. All human persons are human beings, but all human beings are not persons according to this view; and only human persons have moral status. There is a diversity of opinions offered by philosophers on what properties a human being must possess in order to be declared a human person, such as having been born, the ability to experience pleasure and pain, or the beginning of brain activity, just to name a few. One can see that these proposed properties of personhood eliminate a significant number of human beings from having moral status, especially the human embryo and the unborn.
A wonderful challenge to this position, based on reason, is presented by Stephen Schwartz in his book The Moral Question of Abortion. Schwartz notes that there are primarily four characteristic differences that exist between the born and the unborn: Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency (SLED). None of these differences, Schwartz reasons are relevant for determining moral status. Those human beings who have been born are generally larger in size, more developed, live in a different environment (outside the womb), and are more independent than human beings who have yet to be born, including embryos. To claim that moral status can be based on size, it would follow that a human being who weighs 290 lbs. has greater moral status than one weighing 100 lbs. To claim that moral status can be determined by one’s level of development leads to the conclusion that an adolescent has less moral status than an adult does. To claim that moral status can be based on environment suggests that where one is, is more important than who one is. To claim that moral status can be determined by one’s level of dependency results in the notion that a nursing home resident has less moral status than a person living on his or her own. Each of these properties, when carried out to their logical conclusions, is irrelevant for determining moral status. The embryo is a human being who has full moral status, and must be afforded the protection provided by moral norms, simply because of their intrinsic property of being human. No extrinsic, or accidental property such as size, level of development, environment, or level of dependency can be used to deny moral status to the embryo because making such claims leads to absurd conclusions.
There are two excellent books that have been recently released which supports the full moral status of the embryo based upon purely philosophical arguments: Francis Beckwith’s Defending Life, and Embryo: A Defense of Human Life by Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen. Both books are invaluable resources that can be used to defend the full moral status of the embryo as we battle to uphold the sanctity of human life.
Fr. Steve L. Roberts, MD, STL
Fr. Steve Roberts is a priest of the diocese of Lexington, Kentucky and currently completing his work for a doctorate in bioethics. He will be a regular contributor for "Columna Veritatis".
Posts
In today’s address given preceding his signing off on increased federal funding in embryonic stem cell research, President Obama said something that sent chills down my spine:
ReplyDelete"Christopher once told a reporter who was interviewing him: "If you came back here in ten years, I expect that I'd walk to the door to greet you."
Christopher did not get that chance. But if we pursue this research, maybe one day - maybe not in our lifetime, or even in our children's lifetime - but maybe one day, others like him might.
There is no finish line in the work of science. The race is always with us - the urgent work of giving substance to hope and answering those many bedside prayers, of seeking a day when words like "terminal" and "incurable" are finally retired from our vocabulary."
The inevitable "promise" of embryonic stem cell research is the same mantra which has been repeated for several decades now; and yet not a single novel therapy is in use because of the "promising embryonic research" that has occurred through private funding and in other countries. President Obama admits that the inevitable "promise" of this research which has not been actualized in the past few decades may very well not be observed in our own lifetimes or those of our children. To me, using words like “promising research” implies a greater utility than having to wait a hundred years for any realized benefit. For the moral quagmire this legislation conjures and the negative precedent it sets for future medical ethics, we are given only empty promises and fluff which ultimately must conclude with a simple "maybe one day..." this will prove useful.
Most disturbing of all from the quote cited above, President Obama employs phrasing that has become far too commonplace for my own comfort in this world of "scientific evidence showing..." and "new data suggesting..." and "recent studies indicating..."; President Obama stated that placing our faith in science will give "substance to hope and answering those many bedside prayers" of people struggling with illness. He speaks for generations whose prayers are no longer directed toward a Higher Power but who have instead consigned any hope of healing only to those white coat heroes searching for a cure…at any cost.