Some thoughts on embryos

BC Christian News ran a story on embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) back in May. Trinity Western University philosopher Paul Chamberlain is quoted as follows:

“’Using stem cells which would otherwise be destroyed – either by us or by waiting – doesn’t seem prudent,’ responds Paul Chamberlain, professor of apologetics at Trinity Western University. Despite his caution, however, he adds: ‘I can see no moral obligation why we shouldn’t use them if there is a very good purpose that can come about from stem cell research.’ Chamberlain admits that he has ‘struggled with [the issue] pretty hard.’ ‘I am also aware that, by using the excess embryos, we may continue to create a demand by people who would not have the same moral restraints and would not object to creating embryonic stem cells simply for the purpose of research. I would really stand against that.’ The other options, he says, are to either discard or store embryos – or to utilize them for beneficial purposes. ‘If we have an opportunity to use [them] for some other human, who has the same value as the embryo, that may well be morally permissible…The other two options seem to be worse. Unless someone is willing to adopt them – by all means, go ahead. That would be the ultimate. It’s hard to agree that doing nothing is better than doing good… We need to have a high regard for human life.’”

I agree with Chamberlain regarding the ethical problem of creating embryos specifically for research. He seems, however, to open the door for research on frozen embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. I wrote a version of the following letter to the editor (sensible people that they are, they didn’t print it):

“Paul Chamberlain, in expressing his ambivalence over the fate of frozen embryos, seems to be saying that it may be permissible to use embryos to help alleviate suffering. If that is in fact his position, then I must respectfully disagree, though I’m certainly not unsympathetic to his concerns.

While we have an obligation to relieve suffering, such obligation can only be adhered to where it is ethically feasible. We are not obligated to relieve suffering where it is not ethically feasible, and taking the life of an embryo certainly presents some serious ethical difficulties. The argument that embryos, if left in a frozen state, will eventually die and be of use to nobody, overlooks the fact that they are placed in that state by a third party through no fault of their own. These embryos are purposely being prevented from developing in the normal manner.

Now, if such embryos are not human beings then there should be no moral hand-wringing about the matter. But the facts point otherwise. A human embryo is a complete human organism (albeit an immature one). It (in fact, she or he) possesses a complete and unique human genetic code. If placed in the proper environment (her mother’s womb), she will eventually develop and grow into a newborn infant. All such development and growth is directed and controlled not by the mother but by the embryo herself. The facts tell us that the embryo is a human being and, therefore, in possession of intrinsic moral worth. The problem with using embryos for research is that such research treats the embryo as though she is of worth only if she has instrumental value, that is, if she can offer any usefulness to the rest of human society. Jesus’ attitude towards the lame and blind, the "useless" of first century Judea, ought to inform our actions here.

I believe that a frozen embryo, a full member of the human family, should be treated in the same way that a comatose person should be treated. I think most Christians would agree that a person in a coma should not be killed and his organs used for the benefit of others. A defenseless human being should not be used in this way. We care for a comatose person and if he dies then we commit him to his Creator. Where some embryos are not adopted, the same ought to be done for them as well.”

In an article in Time magazine a few years ago, Michael Kinsley asked (referring to a photgraph of a 4 or 5 day old embryo) “Is this a human being? My memory is a bit fuzzy. He may have asked “Does this look like a human being?” In either case, the answer is yes. A 4 day old embryo is a human being. The embryo is alive, contains human DNA, is genetically distinct from its mother or father, and undergoes metabolism,. And does that clump of cells look human? Actually, that is what all humans look like several days after conception.

This website stemcellresearch.org gives details about the promise and effectiveness of adult and umbilical cord stem cell research which, I think, offers the best that stem cells can offer without the attendant ethical problems.