Finding Cures We All Can Live With
by Fr. Roger J. Landry - June 20, 2008
Last Friday, the bishops of the United States overwhelmingly approved a teaching statement entitled, "On Embryonic Stem Cell Research." In it, the bishops tackle head-on the arguments some make to destroy human embryos in order to advance the cause of science. The bishops distinguish between the ethically unobjectionable and already scientifically beneficial use of adult stem cells from the cells obtained through the over-hyped and immoral practice of deliberately killed human embryos. The bishops' succinct responses to the propaganda in favor of embryonic stem cell research should be read, recognized and repeated by faithful Catholics and all who respect human dignity.
"Almost everyone agrees with the principle that individuals and governments should not attack the lives of innocent human beings," the bishops acknowledge at the beginning of the statement. But they say there are three arguments made by embryonic stem cell proponents that try to skirt this clear ethical boundary.
The first argument is that the harm done to the embryo is outweighed by the "potential benefits" that will flow from the research. The bishops respond, "The false assumption that a good end can justify direct killing has been the source of much evil in our world… No commitment to a hoped-for 'greater good' can erase or diminish the wrong of directly taking innocent human lives here and now. In fact, policies undermining our respect for human life can only endanger the vulnerable patients that stem cell research offers to help. The same ethic that justifies taking some lives to help the patient with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease today can be used to sacrifice that very patient tomorrow, if his or her survival is viewed as disadvantaging other human beings considered more deserving or productive. The suffering of patients and families affected by devastating illness deserves our compassion and our committed response, but not at the cost of our respect for life itself."
Another argument is that what is annihilated in embryonic stem cell research is not a human life or at least not a human being with fundamental human rights. The bishops reply, "Some claim that the embryo in his or her first week of development is too small, immature, or undeveloped to be considered a 'human life.' Yet the human embryo, from conception onward, is as much a living member of the human species as any of us. As a matter of biological fact, this new living organism has the full complement of human genes and is actively expressing those genes to live and develop in a way that is unique to human beings, setting the essential foundation for further development. Though dependent in many ways, the embryo is a complete and distinct member of the species Homo sapiens, who develops toward maturity by directing his or her own integrated organic functioning. All later stages of life are steps in the history of a human being already in existence. Just as each of us was once an adolescent, a child, a newborn infant, and a child in the womb, each of us was once an embryo.
"Others, while acknowledging the scientific fact that the embryo is a living member of the human species, claim that life at this earliest stage is too weak or undeveloped, too lacking in mental or physical abilities, to have full human worth or human rights. But to claim that our rights depend on such factors is to deny that human beings have human dignity, that we have inherent value simply by being members of the human family. If fundamental rights such as the right to life are based on abilities or qualities that can appear or disappear, grow or diminish, and be greater or lesser in different human beings, then there are no inherent human rights, no true human equality, only privileges for the strong. As believers who recognize each human life as the gift of an infinitely loving God, we insist that every human being, however small or seemingly insignificant, matters to God — hence everyone, no matter how weak or small, is of concern to us.
"This is not only a teaching of the Catholic Church. Our nation's Declaration of Independence took for granted that human beings are unequal in size, strength, and intelligence. Yet it declared that members of the human race who are unequal in all these respects are created equal in their fundamental rights, beginning with the right to life… Americans have realized that we cannot dismiss or exclude any class of humanity — that basic human rights must belong to all members of the human race without distinction. In light of modern knowledge about the continuity of human development from conception onwards, all of us — without regard to religious affiliation — confront this challenge again today when we make decisions about human beings at the embryonic stage of development."
The third common justification for embryonic stem cell research is that dissecting human embryos for their cells should not be seen as involving a loss of embryonic life, since researchers are only using spare or unwanted embryos destined to die anyway. "This argument is simply invalid," the bishops counter. "Ultimately each of us will die, but that gives no one a right to kill us. Our society does not permit lethal experiments on terminally ill patients or condemned prisoners on the pretext that they will soon die anyway. Likewise, the fact that an embryonic human being is at risk of being abandoned by his or her parents gives no individual or government a right to directly kill that human being first."
The bishops then go on to point out that for embryonic stem cell research ever medically to help particular individuals, doctors would need to clone and kill one's identical twin to prevent immuno-rejection of the stem cells. In many places and protocols, such cloning is already taking place. Our shepherds state this slippery slope happens logically once we accept embryonic stem cell research. "It now seems undeniable that once we cross the fundamental moral line that prevents us from treating any fellow human being as a mere object of research, there is no stopping point. The only moral stance that affirms the human dignity of all of us is to reject the first step down this path."
The prelates add that there is a better way, one that is moral and truly scientifically promising. "Nature in fact provides ample resources for pursuing medical progress without raising these grave moral concerns. Stem cells from adult tissues and umbilical cord blood are now known to be much more versatile than once thought. These cells are now in widespread use to treat many kinds of cancer and other illnesses, and in clinical trials they have already benefited patients suffering from heart disease, corneal damage, sickle-cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, and many other devastating conditions. Researchers have even developed new non-destructive methods for producing cells with the properties of embryonic stem cells — for example, by 'reprogramming' adult cells. There is no moral objection to research and therapy of this kind, when it involves no harm to human beings at any stage of development and is conducted with appropriate informed consent."
They conclude by debunking the myths that conflicts between science and morality are inevitable. "The issue of stem cell research," they say, "does not force us to choose between science and ethics, much less between science and religion. It presents a choice as to how our society will pursue scientific and medical progress. Will we ignore ethical norms and use some of the most vulnerable human beings as objects, undermining the respect for human life that is at the foundation of the healing arts? Such a course, even if it led to rapid technical progress, would be a regress in our efforts to build a society that is fully human."
To keep society truly human, we must ensure that scientific progress proceeds along an ethically responsible path that respects the dignity of each and every human being. This is the only path forward, they affirm, that "will produce cures and treatments that everyone can live with," from the youngest to the oldest, the weakest to the strongest, members of our race.
Father Roger J. Landry is pastor of St. Anthony of Padua in New Bedford, MA and Executive Editor of The Anchor, the weekly newspaper of the Diocese of Fall River.
