Back

Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Mercy Feigned, Not Found

 The June 8 (2003) edition of the Chicago Tribune published an op-ed piece written by Gilbert Meilaender, a professor of Christian ethics at Valparaiso University. In "Arguing honestly about stem cells," the noted Protestant theologian tackled several specious arguments, often uncritically assumed to be valid, in support of embryonic stem cell research for therapeutic purposes (ESCR).

One common "disingenuous argument" misconstrues opposition to ESCR as the moral equivalent of responsibility for the continued suffering of persons afflicted with severe diseases or disabilities such as Parkinson's disease or spinal cord injuries. In this view, rejecting ESCR on moral grounds a priori throws one in to the ranks of "the anti-compassion party." Hence, such insensitivity to human suffering brands opponents of ESCR with the guilt of the proverbial "innocent bystander."

Meilaender questions the circular reasoning entailed in the justification of ESCR for the relief of suffering in the name of the weak and vulnerable. He challenges: "... we need less rhetoric and more argument explaining why the embryos all of us once were are not plausibly characterized as the weakest and most vulnerable of human beings."

A second deceptive impression propagandized in favor of ESCR is the unrealistic promise held out for a present cure for devastating diseases and disabilities. For example,

Meilaender notes that there is no present cure for Parkinson's stemming from "research hardly even begun."

Meilaender targets the inescapable seriousness underlying part of the societal debate about ESCR , for at bottom it is a controversy about "who belongs to that society." This public discussion is ultimately one concerning the common good, the commonweal that touches and promotes human flourishing for every man and woman.

Meilaender identifies the dilemma in terms of fundamental questions about the moral status of the human embryo: Can the human embryo be manipulated as a means to an end or is the embryo" the weakest stage of the human life we all share, not to be used solely as a means in self-interested projects?"

Gilbert Meilaender serves as a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. His personal religious and philosophical stance supports banning all embryo cloning.

 However, the deliberations of the President's Council as a whole reached consensus for a moratorium of four years, thus halting cloning-for-biomedical-research by a majority vote of ten members (out of 17). Even though the proposal failed to recommend a permanent ban on ESCR, it did for the interim effect a consensus regarding a ban on cloning-to- produce-children as well as a temporary hiatus on cloning-for-biomedical-research.

The moral case against cloning-for -biomedical-research set forth a multipronged rationale against ESCR. One of the counterarguments specifically addresses the implications of what society owes to the suffering. The majority position reaches common ground in admitting that "it would be less than human to turn a blind eye to those who suffer and need relief, or to stand silent in the face (especially) of suffering and premature death." But, lack of mercy would be an unfair evaluation of the Majority Recommendation. That judgment is a misreading of the crux of their argument, namely, that "for very strong moral reasons, medical progress must come by means that do not involve the production, use, and destruction of cloned embryos and that do not reduce nascent human life to a resource for our exploitation."

The refusal to use an immoral means to attain a desirable end does not entail the "guilt of causing that suffering." In other words, the refusal to engage in complicity with an immoral practice is not an indictment of responsibility for causing human suffering.

Otherwise, the logical consequences of complicity in moral wrong would be tantamount to a capitulation of conscience to ethical extortion and becoming entrapped as a "moral hostage."

The Majority Recommendation does not view the relief of suffering as the highest human good. On the contrary, there is a prospect that the values of "health and longer life" will be undermined in the long run "if we care only for how long we live, and not also for how we live."

The consensus of the majority crafted a hypothetical response to the charges of failing to help future sufferers of disease and disability.  Their response reflects an admirable moral wisdom. The dialogue reads: "Yes, perhaps so. But we would have done so only by destroying, in the present, the sort of world in which both we and you want to live ---a world in which, as best we can, we respect the human life and human individuals, the weak and the strong." The text goes on to state that bequeathing relief of suffering for future generations is a noble goal but it cannot be achieved at the cost of "stepping across boundaries that are essential to our humanity.”

Accordingly, a necessary part of that heritage to be handed on to the future is "a world that honors moral limits, a world in which the good of some lives is not entirely subordinated to the good of others, a world in which we seek to express, as best we can, the time each human being has and the place each fills."

In reference to ESCR, Richard Doerflinger, associate director for policy development of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has written that "intentional destruction of innocent human life at any stage is inherently evil, and no good consequences can mitigate that evil."

Catholic moral doctrine on this question is explicitly treated in Pope John Paul II's encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life, 1995). The Holy Father firmly condemns scientific procedures which exploit human embryos or fetuses as " 'biological material' or as providers of organs and tissues for transplants in the treatment of certain diseases."

In reference to such practices, Pope John Paul II declares that "(t)he killing of innocent human creatures, even if carried out to help others, constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act." (EV n.63)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church simply quotes Donum Vitae, the 1987 Vatican instruction dealing with bioethics and reverence for life: "It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material." (CCC n.2275. See DV I, 5)

To reverse Portia's declamation on mercy in The Merchant of Venice, "The quality of mercy ...ought to be strained..." by moral boundaries when justice is violated in the name of mercy.

Catholic Conference of Kentucky

1042 Burlington Lane

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

502-875-4345 502-875-2841 Fax cckstaffATccky.org

Last modified: April, 2008