Editor,
Are embryonic stem cells the answer to curing diseases?
Maybe at some time in the far distant future, when researchers have managed to prevent embryonic stem cells from multiplying out of control and creating malignant tumors, then embryonic stem cells will be the cure for diseases. Maybe when researchers have eliminated the possibility of retroviral and pathological contamination of the stem cells, then embryonic stem cells will rightfully be hailed as a miracle cure for disease. Before then, however, the patient may be in for a tragic shock.
If the goal is to treat disease effectively now, then adult stem cells are the logical choice; indeed, a reasonable person would conclude that adult stem cells offer the only practical hope for suffering patients.
Is embryonic stem cell research a moral plague to society? If one believes that human life begins at conception, that embryonic human life is innocent or that innocent human life is worthy of protection, then yes, embryonic stem cell research kills innocent human lives and is morally wrong. However, if one does not believe these things, then no, embryonic stem cell research is not a problem.
But two questions immediately arise. When is an embryo a human life, and who decides?
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
It is agreed among medical experts that a new, unique human life is present at the moment of conception. If this is true, then the new, unique human life should be protected.
If one argues that a human embryo is not a human life, then at what point in the development of the embryo is a human life present? Is it human at two weeks? Implantation? Four weeks? Quickening? Is it human when the mother is aware of it? Or maybe it is human when it can survive outside the womb. Perhaps the extreme view is correct - it is human only when it is outside the womb and completely independent of the mother. All of these positions present significant logical and moral problems, and exhibit ignorance of human developmental biology.
The one who denies the full humanity and innocence of the human embryo at conception must then be the arbitrary judge of when the embryo is human. This makes for a series of tragic and arrogant mistakes in defining human from nonhuman - indeed, the one who decides human from nonhuman has put himself or herself in the position of capricious judge and jury in issues of life and death.
A civil and just society seeks to protect its weakest and most vulnerable members. Certainly, embryonic humans qualify as weak and vulnerable. Our society, if we are to call ourselves civil and just, must protect human embryos from any and all procedures that result in their death. To argue that the greater good of humanity will be served by embryonic stem cell research is an attempt to package a utilitarian argument in altruistic language. Such arguments deserve to be forcefully discredited and utterly rejected.
Joseph Lohnes
UNM medical student
