Stem cell research
Is this exploitative? You bet. Moving? That too.
For the record, “the [Mormon] Church has not taken a position on the issue of embryonic stem-cell research.” This is a interesting stance.
Embryonic stem-cell research requires either the destruction of an existing human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning. For those that believe that an embryo is a human being, destroying an embryo — even if for a noble purpose — is immoral. Also, the idea of therapeutic cloning conjurs images of slippery slopes that end in reproductive cloning. It is distasteful to many that a human being (if that is what an embryo is) should be instrumentalized as a means of treating other human beings.
For opponents of stem-cell research, the moral implications are clear. One wonders, then, what ambiguities remain that cause the church to profess neutrality. Clearly, unborn babies are considered worthy of protection in the eyes’ of the church as we generally oppose elective abortion. One also cannot in a million years believe that the church would support human cloning.
Neutrality, in my mind, can only mean two things: either, the idea that an embryo in a freezer is a “human being” (in the same way we are, or even a foetus is) is unclear. (This is the Orrin Hatch position.) Or, the morality of destroying an embyro — even if considered “human” — to potentially cure a disease is also unclear.
I said that the church’s stance is “interesting.” In fact, it is wholly reasonable given the dilemmas that so easily surface when considering this issue. We all peer through a glass darkly.
For what it’s worth, I support embryonic stem-cell research.
I support it, too, but I don’t care very much about it. And my Dad has Parkinsons. I just don’t have much faith that stem cells will turn out to be the magic bullet that people are hoping for. And I get annoyed with proponents who characterize opponents as standing in the way of the creation of magic bullet cures.
I sympathize with people who oppose stem cell research on the basis of the belief that even an ex utero embryo is worthy of legal protection because I’m staunchly against abortion in almost all cases and the only reason I can cite for my anti-abortion position is my own moral sensibilities. To me, it’s just obviously wrong to destroy a developing fetus. According to the moral sensibilities of some people, it’s just obviously wrong to destroy a frozen human embryo or to create an embryo to be destroyed. I can’t begrudge them that belief or their right to try to win legal protection for embryos based on that belief because the basis for their beliefs is no more or less valid than my basis for my beliefs.
In these kinds of questions science and reason can’t lead us to a definitive “right” answer. So what should the policy be? Whatever the people want.
Comment by Tom — October 25, 2006 @ 7:29 am
The church’s position on stem cell research is not surprising. LDS seem to not view abortion as murder as the evangelical position does. (We do categorize it as sin, but not as murder.) We also do not seal sill born children or miscarriages to there parents either, thus the LDS view of life is different them most Christians. So it appears that there may be some room for stem cell research in LDS theology. At least there is enough for the church to not take a position.
Comment by adam — October 25, 2006 @ 8:07 am
Tom,
I agree, kind of.
Note that the church feels abortion is a definitive “wrong” whereas ESSR is “indefinitive.” I’m wondering what they characterise as the difference. In my mind, the difference is between the ex utero embryo in a freezer, and in the in utero baby. That the former can become the latter, and where to draw the line between the two, pose tricky problems. I happen to think that the church’s silence suggests there is a difference; if they didn’t think there was they would be against ESSR for sure. (Or maybe it’s that there isn’t a difference, but they can’t decide if the potential moral good outweighs the moral bad.)
Comment by Ronan — October 25, 2006 @ 8:11 am
Adam,
If that’s true, note that Mr. Romney tends towards the Evangelical view. Hmmm. I wonder why…?
Comment by Ronan — October 25, 2006 @ 8:12 am
It would be difficult for the Church to oppose stem cell research using embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures, because that would imply that the IVF procedures that created the surplus of embryos are themselves objectionable. (They may, in fact, be. But IVF is fairly common in the Church and it would send a seismic shock through the segments of the membership who are infertile or who have undergone IVF were the Church to denounce it, even indirectly).
Therapeutic cloning presents no such challenge. I, myself, am on the fence on this one and would appreciate some guidance from the Church. My bet is that the brethren simply can’t all get on the same page.
As for reproductive cloning, it remains hypothetical as far as humans are concerned, and I imagine that the Church sees no need to take a position. For the record, while I would be fine with the Church denouncing reproductive cloning, I do not support a permanent government ban on the procedure. I see it primarily as a safety issue. The technology is not ready for prime time and should be banned until it is. But once it is safe, I see no reason why the government should be involved in that reproductive decision.
Comment by Last Lemming — October 25, 2006 @ 9:03 am
I am pretty uneducated on this issue. I have questions about why this research must be done on aborted embryos or cloned embryos. Why not on other forms of cells? Why not on Monkeys?
That being said, I don’t think I can take a position, not having the facts.
Comment by MW* — October 25, 2006 @ 9:04 am
LL,
Re: IVF. You are spot-on there. Excellent point.
Comment by Ronan — October 25, 2006 @ 9:18 am
Ronan:
It’s worth noting the Mitt has change his view on abortion over time and it is pretty well documented on wikipedia
Comment by Matt W. — October 25, 2006 @ 10:05 am
“I just don’t have much faith that stem cells will turn out to be the magic bullet that people are hoping for. And I get annoyed with proponents who characterize opponents as standing in the way of the creation of magic bullet cures.”
Tom, this pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. I haven’t really investigated this subject much, but do we know how effective it will really be. It’s sad that it’s been politicized to the degree that it has.
Comment by Tim J. — October 25, 2006 @ 10:46 am
do we know how effective it will really be.
No. So we do the research to find out.
Characterizing stem cells as a magic bullet implies not just accuracy, but speed. I suspect that claims that stem cells will be integral to the cures of many debilitating conditions will eventually prove to be accurate. But the process will be frustratingly slow, regardless of political barriers. Perhaps “magic tortoise” would be a better characterization.
Comment by Last Lemming — October 25, 2006 @ 10:58 am
Ronan (#3),
I happen to think that the church’s silence suggests there is a difference;
I agree. But that’s just talking about the Church’s position. For those of us who take the Church as an authority on moral matters, we can deduce from the Church’s position that there probably is a moral difference between a frozen embryo and a developing fetus. When I say that the basis for the anti-ESC research position is as valid as that for the pro- position, I mean that in a secular democracy, neither position should be priviledged above the other because they’re both entirely based on individual moral sensibilities. No science or reasoning that doesn’t appeal to religioius authority can tell us which position is the right one. I would say the same thing about abortion. While I believe the anti-abortion (in most cases) position is the right one (the one that God favors), the pro-abortion rights position is equally valid as far as the law is concerned. In these moral questions, the law should be decided by the will of the people (indirectly, of course).
Comment by Tom — October 25, 2006 @ 11:12 am
As far as human reproductive cloning goes, I don’t think it will ever be done. If it was safe, I can’t see too much reason to oppose it, but I definitely oppose the work that would have to be done to prove that it was safe. At some point a cloned embryo will have to be implanted into a uterus for the first time, without knowing for sure the outcome. That’s an experiment that I don’t want to see done. Especially since infertile folks will always have other options.
Comment by Tom — October 25, 2006 @ 11:55 am
I’ve often wondered if there might still be a separation of the physical body and the spiritual body in these instances:
1) when it is not subject to the whole entirety of biochemical washes in the woman’s body or lab setting
and, that there might be a lessening of the separation between complete unification of the body and spirit
2) as the blastocyst is implanted, then
3) grows to physically connect whereas the fetus recieves even more biochemical washes including neuro-chemical washes (that might somewhere include the blessings of life and physically cement the Adam link)
I know that’s esoteric…
On a lighter, and note, aren’t we here to help bring spirits to this world so they can attain a body? It seems to me that we would WANT to further research in this area. Unfortunately, what complicates it all are the many definitions that society itself has adopted to define families and there are a few very large politically influential societies that grasp infanticide. Unless everyone gets the FP and the PoS, this and other social arguments will continue.
Comment by TO — October 25, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
MW*: I’ll try to be brief. There are (at least) two reasons for the research to be done on human cells:
1) Monkeys are quite different from humans. Doing the research on human cells is the closest approximation to how a treatment will affect a human body.
2) One of the goals of ESC is to develop cell lines that can be implanted into patients to restore a lost or impaired function (such as replacing pancreatic cells in a diabetic patient). You want those cells to be human, not simian.
Last Lemming: your first comment was very well stated. As for the “magic tortoise” idea, I predict that we will see some treatments within 10 years.
Tom: I’d second your comment, but I think Tim already did. I am an ESC advocate, but I understand some of the opposition. I believe that some of it, however, is based on ignorance/politics and not morality.
Ronan: great post! I don’t think the commercial was exploitative, though. I really like the way you juxtposed the Church’s positions.
Comment by BrianJ — October 25, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
You want those cells to be human, not simian.
One main reason why: simian cells would be rejected by the immune system, whereas compatible human cells, and especially cells cloned from the very patient they’re being used to treat, would not.
BrianJ: I believe that some of it, however, is based on ignorance/politics and not morality.
I think you’re right. I don’t think the majority of Americans, if they really understood what was involved, would be morally opposed to ESC research. It seems like several states are coming up with their own funding initiatives and I believe it’s only a matter of time before federal funding is allowed again. Depending on how the elections go down, I expect funding will at least be expanded within the next five to ten years.
Comment by Tom — October 25, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
Good thread.
Was the MJF commericial exploitative?
I can see no argument that it exploits anybody. MJF was on it voluntarily. His condition effectively presents costs of opponents positions to future persons like him. It doesn’t even matter if he was ‘acting it up’.
If it doesn’t exploit MJF, is the argument that the commercial exploits embryos? Then aren’t all arguments in favor of embryonic research exploitative?
How is the pro-research side to argue?
Given that the church takes no position, I am tempted to mean that it isn’t against church values, per se, to harvest an embrionic cell.
Thus there exist avenues to ethically pursue the research.
The harm of harvesting is ambiguous. But the harm of prohibition is obvious to those stricken beings in whom society already has a full moral/economic investment and obligation.
Comment by Sam — October 25, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
I would suggest that ESC research and abortion are different in part because of the intent of the people involved. Abortion is designed to prevent life. Leftover IVF embryos are the by-product of people who wanted to bring life into the world, and would be used to help heal the sick.
I don’t claim to know what Heavenly Father thinks of ESC research, but whether he is pro or con, I have a hard time imagining that he views the two as equivalent.
Comment by Jared — October 25, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
Last Lemming: your first comment was very well stated. As for the “magic tortoise†idea, I predict that we will see some treatments within 10 years.
I think some of the heart treatments with embryonic stem cells are looking pretty promising from amazingly primitive methods, all things considered. What’s interesting is how other kinds of stem cells don’t have the same performance.
While I think it’d be at least 10 years before one sees any treatments in humans one should note that by and large that’s par for the course in medical treatments. There really is a lot of research and testing before it gets to a form that you can get.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 25, 2006 @ 11:43 pm
How is this exploitative exactly? Twenty years ago, Michael J. Fox was skating around on a skate board back to the future, but today he can’t walk or perform routine daily activities without taking powerful drugs to counteract the effects of his Parkinson’s Disease. I don’t know the technical ins and outs of stem cell research, but I do know that prematurely foreclosing a potentially fruitful avenue towards a cure is misguided at best.
Michael J. Fox and others who suffer from these diseases and wade into the political fray should be prepared to defend their positions, but I don’t see Mr. Fox’s advertisement supporting stem cell research any more exploitative than George W. Bush landing on an aircraft carrier to announce “Mission Accomplished” or the Republican party preying on the American public’s memory of 9-11 and its fears of terrorism to drum up support for their political candidates.
Comment by ECS — October 26, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
I absolutely agree with this–but just because it’s not any more outrageous than Mr. Bush & Co’s despicable political practices does that make it right? I think Rush Limbaugh is on very thin ice when he criticizes anyone’s personal conduct, and in this case Limbaugh was particularly loathsome (even for him); but, I felt pretty squeamish watching Fox’s paid political ad to defeat another candidate for public office. How far have we come since Lincoln and Douglas? More importantly, are we proud of it?
Comment by Guy Murray — October 26, 2006 @ 4:55 pm
You’re right, Guy. That’s the real question. I wanted to write a post here about how the negative political ads and desperately nasty discourse in Campaign 2006 are not only disgusting, but are distracting from the real issues facing this country. But I sounded too much like Andy Rooney, so I’ll just keep my acerbic personal pet peeves to myself.
Except this one. Almost 100 American soldiers died in Iraq this month. Some estimates number Iraqi civilian deaths since the 2003 U.S. invasion at 100,000.
Comment by ECS — October 26, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
ECS–I think you should write that post.
Comment by Guy Murray — October 26, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
ECS, Guy: could you give me your definition of “exploitative” so I can know why you find Mr Fox’s ad to be that? I just don’t see it—the comparison to Bush on the aircraft carrier is preposterous, in my opinion. Also, please help me understand why I shouldn’t be proud that Fox—or someone like him—can publicly make a thoughtful, reasoned statement.
Limbaugh’s comments were laughable. I particularly enjoyed the irony of him criticizing Fox for not taking drugs. (See my comment above about ignorance, politics, and morality.)
Comment by BrianJ — October 26, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
BrianJ
1. I support ECS research. As Ronan has pointed out The Church has not taken any official position against the practice.
2. I believe the comparison to Bush is appropriate in that his aircraft stunt and his invoking of 9/11 to further his immoral war in the Middle East smack of political expediency. The implication is that if you oppose his war, you must have been for 9/11, or you are for future 9/11′s, or that you support terrorists and terrorism and not our troops. I think this is “outrageous” , which is the term I used. I believe it was Ronan who actually used exploitive.
3. I admire Michael J. Fox, and his fight against the horrible disease with which he is afflicted. My heart aches when I seem him on TV interviews these days. That said, I believe his use of that disease to help further a political candidate(s) is a stunt. It implies that the other candidate or anyone else with an opposing view point must be in favor of Parkinson’s disease–as outrageous as Mr. Bush’s political excess. People can and do have valid moral reasons to oppose the research–I just don’t share that view. It doesn’t mean they are for the disease, or live in the dark ages.
4. Rush Limbaugh, in my opinion, is one of the most despicable humans on the planet.
Comment by Guy Murray — October 26, 2006 @ 10:45 pm
Guy, thanks for the response.
“The implication is that if you oppose his war, you must have been for 9/11, or you are for future 9/11’s, or that you support terrorists and terrorism and not our troops. I think this is “outrageousâ€, which is the term I used. I believe it was Ronan who actually used exploitive.”
I agree that when Bush invokes 9/11 to rally suuport for the war in Iraq he is being outrageous (and exploitative) as you describe. What I disagree with is that what Mr. Fox is doing is similar. 9/11 and Iraq have little/nothing to do with each other, whereas ESC research and Parkinson’s disease are (hopefully) intimately related. I think a more accurate comparison to a Bush war would be his use of 9/11 to muster support for the action in Afghanistan—rhetoric which justifiably smacked of political immediacy.
And I quoted you as saying “exploitative” because that was the term used by ECS, #19, to which you “absolutely agreed.” I’m not trying to quibble here, I just want you to know that I really am paying attention to what you write.
“It implies that the other candidate or anyone else with an opposing view point must be in favor of Parkinson’s disease–as outrageous as Mr. Bush’s political excess.”
I listened to the commercial again, just to be sure, but I don’t agree. I think Fox frames the issue well: “Look, you may oppose ESC research, but you need to know that there is a cost to your position that is paid by a lot of Americans.” This research isn’t about science for the sake of science, it is about helping severly disabled people. Somehow, you have to bring that into the debate—force your opponents to consider both the morals of destroying human embryos and of delaying cures.
Fox could have said (but didn’t), “Senator Talent doesn’t care if I get cured.” Instead, the message was (paraphrasing), “Senator Talent’s decision to oppose ESC research diminishes my hope for a cure.”
As for your “support [of] ECS research,” I think that the ECS who is commenting on this thread should feel duly warned. {smile}
Comment by BrianJ — October 26, 2006 @ 11:31 pm
Well, I do support ECS’ research as well–I’m sure it’s much better than mine.
Obviously I should have written ESC research–thanks for the correction.
Fox does frame the issue well. Of course he doesn’t come right out and say support my guy, or you must support the disease I have. It’s much more subtle than that. But let’s face it, political ads are purposely slanted, and these days are purposely made to be outrageous. I will re-word my position to state, I was disappointed to see Mr. Fox’s use of his disease in a paid political commercial. I thought him above that sort of thing. In fact, I believe I read that he made several of these types of ads for different candidates around the country.
I am never surprised to see George Bush manipulate the political process. And, when I see him do it, I am truly “outraged.”
Comment by Guy Murray — October 26, 2006 @ 11:46 pm
Guy,
I agree that the level smut in campaigns is discouraging. But is the MJF commercial really innapropriate? I think he is attacking an issue. And I think that he is being fair. He doesn’t attack the candidate personally, he attacks opponents positions and states the candidate that supports his. I wish all political discourse framed the issues so clearly and effectively.
Just because it is emotional doesn’t mean it is unfair.
Comment by Sam — October 29, 2006 @ 7:39 pm
Sam,
As I said above #24 and 26, he’s using his disease to imply that the other candidate must not be in favor of its cure. Of course no one would take that position. In short, that’s the problem I have with MJF’s commercial.
Comment by Guy Murray — October 29, 2006 @ 9:40 pm