Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Deciding Irish Policy in Europe

 

There is overwhelming evidence that research involving human stem-cells can result in therapeutic benefits in the treatment of chronic diseases.

Adult stem-cells, including those taken from the cord-blood, from bone marrow, etc.) can be harvested without placing the life of the individual at risk.

Embryonic stem-cells cannot be harvested without destroying the embryo from which they are taken.

An embryo is a distinct subsistent (being) of the human species.  Paradoxically the truth of this statement is reinforced by the very possibility of embryos existing outside the womb.

 

a.         The cloning of embryos for research or therapeutic purposes

In the proposal currently before the European Parliament, the distinction is made between so-called therapeutic cloning and so-called reproductive cloning. This distinction is spurious and relies on the abuse of terminology.

v     All cloning is reproductive, and the only distinction is whether or not the cloned individual is allowed to live. No cloning is therapeutic in the sense normally intended by the term.

v     Therapeutic research means research which holds out the possibility of some benefit to the health or well-being of the individual who is the subject of the research. Whoever else may benefit from the results of research, the embryo will not.

Conclusion: All human cloning should be banned.

b.         The use of embryonic stem-cells for bio-medical research

While there may be (and this is not proven), advances in the treatment of diseases such as Alzheimer’s, MS etc., these advances don’t justify the deliberate destruction of embryos. This is so, irrespective of

v     the benefits involved, and

v     whether or not other sources of stem cells are equally useful

Principle: a good end does not justify an evil means.

Conclusion: Embryonic stem-cells should not be used for research

c.         The argument that
: It is not proposed to allow embryonic stem-cell research in Ireland

The issue of participation is relevant here. This has a very specific meaning in ethics.

We will be materially participating in unethical research on human embryos if we either

v     contribute to the funding of the research

v     propose to benefit directly from the results of the research (by using the information gained in our pharmaceutical industry)

We will be formally participating in unethical research on human embryos if we vote in such a way as to allow that research to take place. We must either accept that our vote has some relevance, or alternatively that it has no relevance. If it has no relevance, then we must question the relevance of our membership of the EU.

Conclusion:  It would be unethical, and probably unconstitutional, for the Irish government to vote in such a way as to imply acceptance of embryonic stem-cell research anywhere in the EU

d.         The argument that
: Research will be limited to supernumerary embryos, which will eventually be destroyed anyway, and that we may as well give some meaning to their existence!

The fact that supernumerary embryos are eventually destroyed leads us to question the ethics of producing supernumerary embryos in the first place. It is also worth noting that, if embryonic stem-cell research begins with the use of supernumerary embryos generated prior to June 2002, it is unlikely to stop when these embryos have been used up. These are not, however, the particular issues in question here.  

The morality of an act doesn’t depend simply on its ultimate consequences, however significant these may be. This is because some acts, however well intentioned, are objectively (by their nature) evil.

All human beings will eventually die. The real evil involved in the destruction of embryos is the loss of moral integrity on the part of those who participate in that decision.

It is not what we do that gives meaning to the existence of another human being. That meaning is inherent in the act of creation, and we choose either to respect it or not to respect it. (One of the problems with IVF and other artificial reproductive therapy is that we can begin to believe that we are the creators of life, and that we are the ones who give it meaning).

Conclusion: The destruction of supernumerary embryos is not less wrong than the destruction of other embryos.

e.         Evaluating the practical benefits of embryonic stem-cell research

It is often suggested that cloning is beneficial because it produces another being who is genetically identical to the donor. This suggestion is based on the assumption that all the genetic material in the cloned embryo will come from the donor (who provides the cell-nucleus) . This is not in fact the case. There is a small amount of genetic material in the mitochondria of the ovum, which are in the external substance of the ovum and are not removed when the nucleus of the ovum is replaced with a nucleus from the donor.

This means that the clone is not an exact genetic replica of the donor. Evidence is also appearing that the process of cloning frequently causes damage to the mitochondria.

Conclusion:  the use of stem-cells from cloned embryos, even if it did not result in the destruction of the embryo, is less likely to be therapeutically beneficial than was originally  thought.

f.          New awareness of the therapeutic potential adult stem-cells

Stem cells taken from the placenta, from blood, or from bone marrow are multi-potent, and are among the many varieties of stem-cells which have the potential to be used to treat chronic illnesses. While individually these “adult” stem-cells are not as versatile as embryonic stem-cells, there is such a variety of sources from which they can be taken, that they are collectively just as effective. Added to this, the fact that they are individually less versatile means that they are also individually more predictable and safer to use.

Conclusion: Resources which are available for research in this area should be invested in pursuing the development of therapies resulting from adult stem-cell research.

 

g.         The argument that:
Informed consent for embryonic stem-cell research will be obtained from the parents

The question arises as to whether the parents are the “owners” of the embryos, or their “guardians.” Guardians must always act in the best interests (i.e. for the good) of those who are in their care. It would not be within the competence of guardians to give consent for research which did not hold out the prospect of proportionate benefit for the subject of the research. This is why the Declaration of Helsinki specifically excludes non-clinical research involving human subjects who are incapable of giving informed consent on their own behalf.

Conclusion:    The consent of parents for this research is worthless and irrelevant

h.         This proposal does not rightly belong under the heading of “industry” or the sub-heading of “competitiveness.”

It appears odd that an issue which has such an important bearing on human rights should be dealt with by the EU under the heading of “competitiveness.” There is an inherent risk in this that the matter will be decided on the basis of inappropriate or inadequate criteria. The World Medical Council’s Declaration of Helsinki requires that all research involving human subjects should be under the ultimate control of a medical professional, whose first responsibility is the well-being of his / her patient.

Conclusion:    The EU should deal with this matter under the auspices of the commissioners who have responsibility for health, justice, and / or social affairs.