President Obama okays funding embryonic stem cell research (but removes adult stem
cell funding)
What are the issues involved?
by Lita Cosner
Published: 19 March 2009(GMT+10)
Photo wikipedia.org
President Barack Obama: signed decree to force taxpayers to fund embryonic stem
cells, and removed funding for life-saving adult stem cells
Earlier this month, President Barack Obama reversed a Bush executive order which
limited federal funds for embryonic stem cell research to lines created before 9
August 2001 (see US Senate passes embryonic
stem cell bill; President vetoes). Under Obama’s new executive order,
federal funding will be available for new embryonic stem cell lines, created
by the destruction of human embryos. Some in the media have hailed this as a step
forward for science. Others try to garner support for the decision by enlisting
the support of family members of individuals who suffer from illnesses like
ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Syndrome) and
diabetes, who hope that this form of stem-cell research might lead to
cures of their conditions. But do the facts back up such hope?
The Risks of ESC Treatment
The
recent case of an Israeli boy who was injected with embryonic stem cells
by Russian doctors highlights the dangers of treatment with embryonic stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, which means they are able to change into more
types of tissue than adult stem cells, but they are also less stable. In the case
of the Israeli boy, the injections caused
tumors in his spine and brain.
Even
U.S. News and World Report (by no means a conservative or Christian stronghold
politically!) calls embryonic stem cell research ‘obsolete’. While the
tumors caused by embryonic stem cells do not seem to be anomalous, adult stem cells,
which are multipotent, do not cause these tumors; the worst that happens is that
they might die off without producing the hoped-for cure, but they do not seem to
have any ill effects. And unlike embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells have actually
produced over 70 cures—see detailed documentation of some of them in
Stem cells and Genesis.
Why ESCs are unnecessary
In 2007, scientists discovered a way to force adult stem cells to revert to a pluripotent
state, making them like embryonic stem cells without the destruction of human life.
What’s more, these induced-pluripotent cells are cheaper than embryonic stem
cells while remaining relatively easy to produce, rendering embryonic stem cells
inefficient and expensive, comparatively. (Note, however, these induced-pluripotent
stem cells, like embryonic stem cells, can cause tumors.)
The Ethical Issues
Claudia Castillo, 30-year-old mother of two in Barcelona, whose life was saved by new adult stem cell treatment. She was given a new windpipe made from her own stem cells, not embryonic ones. See also this video explaining the procedure.
Embryonic stem cells are the only variety which pose a moral problem for the Christian,
because producing them necessarily ends the life of a human embryo. Because CMI
takes the biblical position that innocent1
human life should not intentionally be destroyed, this poses an insurmountable ethical
problem. Therefore, while the arguments of the ineffectiveness and dangers of embryonic
stem cells are useful, even if scientists found solutions to these problems, and
even if embryonic stem cells turned out to be more effective than adult
stem cells (an absolute reversal of what the case actually is), CMI would still
oppose embryonic stem cell research, because the end of possibly saving human lives
does not justify killing others, in the same way that Dr Mengele’s medical
experimentation on Jews during the Holocaust were inexcusable, and would be even
if it had produced numerous medical breakthroughs.
Unlike embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells have actually produced over 70 cures.
Many have argued that the extra embryos in fertility clinics, left over from fertility
treatments, are headed for the trash anyway, so if they are going to be killed in
any case, it is better to derive some benefit from them. But those are not the only
possible destinations for the extra embryos. Agencies like
Snowflakes Frozen Embryo Adoption Program arrange for these embryos to be
adopted by infertile people who will have them implanted. Already, babies have been
adopted in this way (see some of them on the
Snowflakes web site), and their very existence is a reminder that every
embryo is already a baby; not simply ‘potential’ life, but life in limbo.
Former president George W. Bush
said, “Each of these children was still adopted while still an embryo
and has been blessed with a chance to grow, to grow up in a loving family. These
boys and girls are not spare parts. They remind us of what is lost when embryos
are destroyed in the name of research. They remind us that we all begin our lives
as a small collection of cells. And they remind us that in our zeal for new treatments
and cures, America must never abandon our fundamental morals."
Indeed, many Americans from every side of the political spectrum oppose embryonic
stem cell research. For instance,
Democrats for Life of America, associated with Obama’s own political
party, said that they stood “against President Obama’s decision, period.
There are workable and successful options available to private sector research operations
that use umbilical cord blood and non embryonic stem cells. To frame this decision
as a necessity to cure finding medical research is not accurate. While we have zero
confidence that a call for reversal of this Executive Order will prevail, we are
hopeful that the President will heed our call for common ground solutions in dealing
with pro-life Democrats.”
This demonstrates that the stem cell debate is far from a political, “right-wing
issue”. Their organization’s
article about stem cells raises the same problems with embryonic stem cell
research showing that this is primarily an ethical, not a political, debate.
Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cells
One issue that complicates embryonic stem cell research is that of tissue rejection.
If the stem cells are genetically different from the patient’s own cells,
for instance, if they came from an embryo who was discarded from a fertility center,
there is a high risk of complications linked to tissue rejection. One way to circumvent
this is to clone the patient, thereby gaining embryonic stem cells that are genetically
identical to the patient. However, this compounds the immorality of embryonic stem
cells by intentionally creating a life to be destroyed.
President Obama has
said:
“I will oppose ideologically driven efforts by government to restrict certain
types of medical research or to intervene in doctor-patient relationships. While
I oppose human cloning, I also oppose federal restrictions on therapeutic stem cell
research.”
It is (perhaps intentionally) unclear whether the president would lift restrictions
on human cloning for stem-cell research, his opposition to any restriction of embryonic
stem cell research overriding his opposition to human cloning. However, his
statement against cloning for reproductive purposes was much clearer:
“we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning
for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our
society, or any society.” So ironically, he seems to be categorically opposed
to cloning only if it results in a live baby! In any case, the statement is absurd;
human cloning is by definition a form of ‘human reproduction’,
whether one is reproducing a human to implant in a uterus, or to rip it apart for
its stem cells. (See
Legalized Cloning in Australia: What are the issues? The basic arguments
apply equally well to America.)
Obama’s anti-life ideology
The ‘Freedom of Choice Act’ would mean that Christian hospitals would
likely have to close, and Christian doctors would have to give up their practices
for their pro-life views.
Apparently, however, Obama is not opposed to restricting adult stem cell
research, because the same executive order which gives funding to embryonic stem
cell research
takes away funding from adult stem cell research. This is a senseless move
on the part of the president; the only stem cell research he is interested in funding
is precisely the most dangerous kind, the only kind that a large segment of the
population is opposed to on moral grounds, and the only one that has consistently
failed to produce the promised ‘miracle cure’ results. If he were really
concerned about life-saving medical advances, as opposed to pro-abortion ideology,
he would hardly have undermined the research with proven benefits. However, just
as private donors and even states could fund embryonic stem cell research prior
to Obama’s reversal of the Bush executive order, private donors and state
governments can fund adult stem cell research if they wish. And given adult stem
cell treatment’s track record of providing cures for many diseases, it almost
certainly will not die out because of the lack of federal funds.
There is one protection for human embryos still in place: the
Dickey Wicker Amendment, included in spending bills each year since 1996,
explicitly states that “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed,
discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death” cannot receive
federal funding. Yet pro-abortion politicians are trying to get this last protection
overturned.
Unfortunately, this is not the only anti-life action of the Obama administration.
In fact, Obama from the very beginning of his term has acted consistently according
to his extreme anti-life record in Congress and the Illinois state senate, which
led NARAL2 to give him a
100% rating 3 years in a row. This extends even to support for infanticide
(see my previous article Bioethicists and
Obama agree: infanticide should be legal).
Less than a week after his inauguration, he withdrew the ‘Mexico City Policy’
which withheld federal funds from organizations which provide abortions overseas.
This means that American taxpayers are forced to fund overseas abortions whether
or not they wish to do so. And less than three months into his presidency there
are fears that he may pass the
Freedom of Choice Act, which would not only overturn all restrictions states
have put on abortion, such as partial-birth abortion bans, parental notification
laws, and laws against transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of
an abortion, but would also force doctors and nurses who are pro-life to either
violate their conscience and perform abortions, or quit practicing medicine. This
would mean that Christian hospitals would likely have to close, and Christian doctors
would have to give up their practices for their pro-life views.
Professor Alan Mackay-Sim: awarded 2003 Queenslander of the Year for his promising
research into adult stem cells from the nose.
Genesis and stem cells
The arguments against embryonic stem cell research are very similar to those against
abortion, the basis of which are found in texts throughout the Bible, starting in
Genesis. While it is acceptable to do medical research using animals based on man’s
God-given dominion over the rest of creation, man was not given the same authority
over other human beings. This means that there is a distinction between what is
permissible to do to an animal and what is permissible to do to a human being (recognizing,
of course, that man’s dominion over animals is no excuse for cruelty).
The reason human life is more valuable than animal life is also explained in Genesis:
unlike animals, mankind is created in the image of God. This means that human life
is intrinsically more valuable, and that an attack on life is in a sense an attack
on the image of God. That is the basis for the death penalty that God imposed for
murder in the covenant He made with Noah after the Flood (Genesis 9:6).
Though it could hardly be a conscious move on the choice of the pro-abortion crowd,
it is not surprising that many of the people who are most opposed to any sort of
restriction of abortion, which has caused the largest mass-slaughter of human beings
in history, or embryonic stem cell research, are also avowed atheists.3 Conversely,
Norma McCorvey, better known as the Roe of Roe v. Wade, became
pro-life after her
conversion to Christianity in 1995.
The basic issues
Embryonic stem cell research treats a class of human beings not as individuals whose
lives have intrinsic value, but as commodities to be used or disposed of for the
convenience of others. Embryonic stem cell research has shown almost no promise,
unlike adult stem cells which do not destroy a human life. Moreover, the risks involved
with embryonic stem cell research make it a very risky form of treatment. But even
if these obstacles could be removed, this would not make the act of sacrificing
vulnerable human beings for medical advances acceptable, because the basic argument
against the use of stem cells is that such research inevitably leads to the destruction
of a human life.
Related articles
Further reading
Related resources
References
- In the sense of not having committed a crime deserving of
death, not a denial of the sinful nature of the pre-born human being, from Latin
in nocens = not harming. Return to text.
- NARAL was founded in 1968 by Bernard Nathanson, Larry Lader, and Betty Friedan, as an acronym for National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. After the US Supreme Court invented a hitherto unknown “constitutional” right to abortion in the infamous Roe v Wade case (1973), the name was changed to the National Abortion Rights Action League, then the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. In 2003 they dropped acronymy completely in favour of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Return to text.
- For example, Humanist Manifesto II (1973) states: ‘The
right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized.’ Its signatories
include Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood, Betty Friedan of the National Organisation
of Women — both leading pro-abortion organizations — and Henry Morgentaler
who was at the forefront of the Canadian push for abortions. Etienne Baulieu, the
developer of the abortion pill RU-486, properly known as a human pesticide, is a
signatory to Humanist Manifesto 2000. And in New Zealand, a major leader in liberalizing
the abortion law was the abortionist Jim Woolnough, who was a member of the NZ Humanist
Society. As
already documented, Peter Singer uses atheism to attack a sanctity-of-life
ethic — not only for unborn babies, but also for newborn babies and elderly
people with Alzheimer’s disease. Return to text.
|
