The Problem Isn’t Stem Cells, It’s Ethics

David C. Stolinsky, MD
March 16, 2009

Now, this order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let's be clear: Promoting science isn't just about providing resources − it's also about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient − especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda − and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology. [Emphasis added.]
− President Barack Obama, March 10, 2009

Dr. James Thomson, the pioneer of embryonic stem cells, said, “If human embryonic stem-cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.” Obama clearly has not.
− Charles Krauthammer, syndicated columnist, March 13, 2009

We descend into hell by tiny steps.
− Charles Baudelaire

Stem-cell research is a promising approach to improved treatments for diseases and injuries. The method is new and results are still meager, but enthusiasm reigns unchecked in the popular press. An example is the TV ad that appeared during the 2000 Super Bowl. Christopher Reeve, the late actor rendered quadriplegic in an accident, was shown by special effects to be walking. It is understandable that a paralyzed person would fantasize walking. It is less understandable that others would encourage false hopes that have yet to be realized nine years later.

Those who favor embryonic stem-cell research applaud President Obama’s decision to reverse the executive order of President Bush that banned federal funding. But let us be clear. Bush’s order did not ban such research, as many newspapers and TV pundits claimed. Bush merely banned the use of federal funds to support such research, which continued with the support of other funds − from states, from foreign governments, and from private companies and individuals.

And Bush did not ban federal funding of all stem-cell research, as many of the same sources claimed. No, federal funding continued under Bush for research involving adult stem cells, which has already produced interesting results. Federal funding also continued for research involving embryonic stem cell-lines from embryos that had already been destroyed. What Bush banned was use of federal funds to support research involving embryonic stem cells derived from embryos that were still alive − and would be destroyed for the research.

Charles Krauthammer is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist who is himself quadriplegic. He was injured in a diving accident, but went on to finish Harvard Medical School and serve as chief resident in psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital. Krauthammer is uniquely qualified to comment on this subject. He is a trained physician who himself might benefit from stem-cell research. When he speaks, we should listen.

Krauthammer agrees with the Bush position with one exception. He would permit use of embryos from fertility clinics that were unused and might otherwise be destroyed. To me, this is a gray area. If the embryos would surely be discarded, why not use them for medical research? But if unused embryos were used for research, fertility clinics would be motivated to produce more of them − for money or for altruistic reasons. So we would create human life with the purpose of destroying it, and cannibalizing its parts for use elsewhere. I use the term “cannibalizing” deliberately.

We can argue about where the line should be drawn. Bush drew it to protect all intact human embryos. Krauthammer would draw it slightly leftward, and allow use of embryos from fertility clinics. But as Krauthammer points out, President Obama draws no line at all. Obama’s executive order allows federal support for taking any human embryos, whether cloned or derived in the usual way from eggs and sperm, and destroying them for spare parts.

The problem, you see, is much wider than stem cells. The problem is much wider than abortion, which President Obama supports. The problem is the definition and protection of human life.

When Obama was a state senator, he three times voted against a law that would require medical care for babies born alive after botched abortions. We can argue about whether Roe vs. Wade was properly decided by the Supreme Court. We can argue about precisely how much the mother must be endangered, or just inconvenienced, before abortion takes place.

But can we really argue about whether a baby born alive should be cared for, or left to die on a cold steel sink in the soiled utility room? This is no longer a fetus, which by the way means “offspring,” not “unsightly mole that can be removed whenever one wishes.” No, after it is born, it is a baby − and no longer an “it,” but a he or a she.

Question: Can our dedication to abortion be so strong that we claim a born baby is still “part of a woman’s body” to do with as she pleases? Answer: Yes, if we follow the example of our President.

During the 2008 election, vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin met with harsh criticism because she had participated in hunting. But who is the real killer − one who hunts plentiful animals for sport and food, or one who blocks medical care for babies born alive after “failed” abortions? The American people answered that question on Election Day.

Or did they? Did they understand the full import of their vote? Did they know they were voting for a man who proudly proclaims that he wants scientists to do whatever is possible, unrestricted by “ideology” − that is, unhampered by ethical considerations?

In fact, a national poll showed that when asked when human life begins, 59% of Americans said at conception, 17% said when the baby could survive outside the womb, while 17% said at birth − and none said after birth. In fact, the large majority of Americans would not agree with President Obama’s position if they thought about it enough. But will they?

Science is the search for truths about the structure and function of the physical universe. But it has no answers to questions about other kinds of truths. It has nothing to say about good or evil. The Nazi scientists who devised efficient methods of eliminating the mentally or physically handicapped were just as scientific as the British scientists who developed penicillin. But they had different values. The British saw human life as an end in itself; the Nazis saw it as a means to achieve their goals.

If we look to scientists for moral leadership, we will be disappointed. Of all professions in Germany, medicine had the highest percent of Nazi Party members. If we believe that legal is the same as moral, will we survive as a civilization? Will we deserve to?

Should all science be legal? Should scientists do whatever they are able to do? How late an embryo should they destroy? Where does this road lead? Do we know? Do we care?

One who asserts that scientists should be free to pursue their research wherever it takes them, without being restricted by “ideology,” is a fundamentally amoral person.

●

Author’s Note:

Some would say that I am an alarmist, and that it is inappropriate to mention Nazis in connection with stem-cell research. But if one smells smoke, is it rude to shout “Fire!” too loudly? Hitler did not achieve total power by proclaiming that he intended to murder the mentally or physically afflicted, as well as Jews, Gypsies and political dissidents. Even Nazis would have been repelled by that admission. No, he declared that he wanted to reform the decadent ways of the former government, and to create a healthier, stronger Germany through eugenics. He downgraded religion and praised science − and as a result was supported by many scientists, who yearned for government support of their work. Only after he achieved power did his agenda become obvious, but by then it was too late.

The time to protest is at the first sign that some categories of human life can be sacrificed for the benefit of more favored categories. If all human life isn’t sacred, none is. Who lives and who dies is then just a matter of opinion, and the only opinion that counts is that of the bureaucrats. We already see this happening at the dawn of life, from embryos to fetuses to newborns. And soon it will happen at the twilight of life. President Obama’s first choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Daschle, planned to solve the Social Security and Medicare deficit by rationing care for the elderly. Some of these provisions were sneaked into the “stimulus” bill. But what’s next? I don’t intend to sit passively and wait. Do you?

●

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com