Saving life by Funding Death

As a gardener of very limited ability, I have always been fascinated by the reproduction of Geraniums. You can cut one stem off an adult plant, shove it into potting compound, add a drop of water, and it grows. The theory behind the use of human stem-cells is much the same.

The Scientific Issue

Stem-cells are highly versatile cells in the human organism, which are capable both of reproducing themselves, and of developing to produce the more specialised cells out of which human tissue and organs are formed. People sometimes talk in terms of growing replacement organs but, at the present state of scientific research, the more realistic possibility is the injection of stem-cells to repair damaged tissue, muscle, nerves, or even bone. Among the conditions which are potentially treatable in this way are heart disease, alzheimer’s, and stroke. For many years leukaemia has been successfully treated by the replacement of bone-marrow which is an excellent source of stem-cells.

Human stem-cells can be harvested from a variety of sources. They are classified into two categories. Embryonic stem-cells are harvested from human embryos. All stem-cells other than those taken from embryos are referred to as adult stem-cells, and these can be harvested from a variety of sources including bone marrow, cord blood, placenta, liver etc.

Some researchers argue that, because embryonic stem-cells are more versatile, they have greater potential for medical use than adult stem-cells which, although they are still quite versatile have already begun to develop. It would be true to say that a particular embryonic stem-cell is far more versatile than any one adult stem-cell. But in recent years researchers have come to realise that there are far more sources of adult stem-cells in the human organism than had previously been recognised. As a result, the potential for obtaining an adult stem-cell which is suited to a particular need is far greater than had previously been thought.

Another issue which must be faced is that the extreme versatility of embryonic stem-cells brings its own risks with it. Their versatility also makes them less predictable. It is not clear that they can always be relied upon to develop as intended, and there is the risk of bone developing where muscle is required or vice versa. The careful selection of adult stem-cells, which are further along the developmental chain, would seem to reduce that risk.

The Ethical Issue

Adult stem-cells can be harvested without causing harm or loss of life. Provided proper consent is obtained, and the stem-cells are used for the purpose of developing treatments, there is no ethical problem about the use of adult stem-cells. It is to this area of research that the funding should be directed.

But the harvesting of stem-cells from embryos always results in the destruction of the embryo. If it were only a haphazard cluster of cells, that would be no problem. But an embryo, although it is small and can’t smile yet, is a distinct individual human being in the process of rapid organised development. Modern research in genetics and in reproductive technology actually helps to demonstrate that this is true. We now know that a human embryo can live and develop apart from its mother. We know too that a human embryo is genetically distinct from its parents, and that all the genetic information that is required for its development is already present at the single-cell stage. There is no way to avoid the fact that the destruction of an embryo is the destruction of a human being.

Researchers argue that it is acceptable to destroy embryos as long as it is done in a good cause, and as long as the parents give consent. But the deliberate destruction of innocent human life is fundamentally evil, and even the prospect of wonderful new cures does nothing to change that. “The end doesn’t justify the means.”

It has been suggested that there would be no ethical problem if the research were limited to so-called “spare” embryos, the by-product of IVF, which are being kept in frozen storage. The argument is put forward that these embryos are going to be disposed of anyway, once they reach the end of their “shelf-life,” and we might as well “give some meaning” to their lives. To be used as raw material for the pharmaceutical industry is not what gives meaning to the existence of a human embryo. That meaning is inherent in the act of creation, and we choose either to respect it or not to respect it. All human beings eventually die, and embryos are no different. The moral evil is associated not with the fact that embryos die, but with the fact that somebody decides to kill them.

If there is a problem about what to do with “surplus” embryos, that problem has its roots in the assumption that, with IVF, there will always have to be surplus embryos. But that is not the case. The solution to that particular problem is to avoid generating “surplus” embryos in the first place.

The Political Issue

On October 29^th a delegation from the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference met with the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The bishops expressed their grave concern at the inclusion of a proposal in the Sixth Framework Programme for Research that the EU should jointly fund destructive research involving human embryos. The Council of Ministers will vote on the Sixth Framework Programme at the end of November 2003, and the bishops asked the Taoiseach to ensure that the Irish delegation votes against the funding of research on embryos and on embryonic stem-cells.

It speaks volumes that this issue is being discussed at the EU under the headings of “trade” and “competitiveness.” Whether by accident or by design, this carries the implication that human embryos are commodities or consumer goods. Two years ago, Ireland could have joined Italy, Germany and Austria to ensure that embryonic stem-cell research was excluded from this Programme, but no effort was made to do so at the time.

The Government now seems to take the view that, as long as destructive embryonic research is not happening here, then Ireland won’t stand in the way of its happening elsewhere in Europe. This attitude is totally at odds with the spirit of the Constitution which specifically recognises the right to life of the unborn. It actually leaves the door open for the Irish pharmaceutical industry to benefit from the destruction of embryos, as long as that destruction takes place elsewhere.

Successive Irish governments have told us that we have a significant voice in Europe. The time has now come for this government to take a principled stand and to give moral leadership in the European Union. The decision to be taken on this issue will, in a very real sense, be more fundamental than the Nice Treaty in determining the character and ethos of the Europe in which we will live in the future.

As this matter comes under the heading of trade, the immediate political responsibility for the vote at the Council of Ministers rests with the Tánaiste, Mary Harney. But the Tánaiste is only one member of a government which operates by the principle of collective responsibility. Her vote at the Council of Ministers must, therefore, be subject to the approval of the cabinet, each member of which shares with her both the moral and the political responsibility for whatever position will be taken by the Irish delegation at the Council of Ministers.