Advertisement

Compromise and Moral Complicity in the Embryonic Stem Cell Debate

  • Katrien Devolder
  • John Harris

Abstract

In September 2004, Italy’s health minister, Girolamo Sirchia, hailed the successful treatment of a five-year-old boy with thalassaemia, an inherited form of life-threatening anaemia. The therapy involved transplanting stem cells of the umbilical cord blood of the boy’s newborn twin siblings. The minister hoped to use this case to convince the Italian public of the potential of non-embryo-derived stem cells and to justify the contentious Italian law on assisted reproduction. However, soon after his ‘triumph’ it became known that the twin pregnancy was realised with IVF and the selection of embryos through PGD and HLA typing, in a hospital in Turkey, techniques which Sirchia considers as immoral and which are outlawed by the Italian government.2

Keywords

Stem Cell Embryonic Stem Cell Human Embryonic Stem Cell Stem Cell Research Stem Cell Line 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    R. Lorenza (2004) ‘Italian Minister in Trouble’, The Scientist (September) 9.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    A. A. Kiessling and S. Anderson (2003) Human Embryonic Stem Cells. An Introduction to the Science and Therapeutic Potential (Boston, Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Publishers), p. 164Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Solter, D. Beyleveld, M. B. Friele et al. (2003) Embryo Research in Pluralistic Europe (Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer Verlag).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. A. Thomson, et al. (1998) ‘Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts’, Science, 282(5391), pp. 1145–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    R. A. Pedersen (1999) ‘Embryonic Cells for Medicine’, Scientific American 1280(4), pp. 68–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 4.
    B. E. Reubinoff et al. (2000) ‘Embryonic Stem Cell Lines from Human Blastocysts: Somatic Differentiation in vitro’, Nature Biotechnology, 18, pp. 399–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 4.
    R. E. Schwartz et al. (2002) ‘Multipotent Adult Progenitor Cells from Bone Marrow Differentiate into Functional Hepatocyte-like Cells’, Journal of Clinical Investigations, 109(10), pp. 1291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 4.
    C. M. Verfaillie (2002) ‘Adult Stem Cells: Assessing the Case for Pluripotency’, Trends in Cell Biology, 12(11), pp. 502–8. Austin Smith has emphasised the importance of pursuing research on all sources of stem cells simultaneously (paper presented at FENS Forum Workshop, Paris, 13 July 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 4.
    G. Kogler et al. (2004) ‘A New Human Somatic Stem Cell from Placental Cord Blood with Intrinsic Pluripotent Differentiation Potential’, Journal of Exploratory Medicine, 200(2), pp. 123–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 5.
    F. D. Camargo, S. M. Chambers and M. A. Goodell (2004) ‘Stem Cell Plasticity: From Transdifferentiation to Macrophage Fusion’, Cell Proliferation, 37, pp. 55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 5.
    C. Mummery (2004) ‘Stem Cell Research: Immortality or a Healthy Old Age?’, European Journal of Endocrinology, 151 (November), Suppl. 3, pp. U7–U12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 6.
    See, for example, J. R. Meyer, a priest of the Opus Dei Prelature, who says that ‘the medical benefits which might accrue for some patients do not outweigh the grave consequences for the embryo that is killed in order to produce ES cells for medical therapy’. J. R. Meyer (2000) ‘Human Embryonic Stem Cell and Respect for Life’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 26, pp. 166–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 8.
    S. Holm (2002) ‘Going to the Roots of the Stem Cell Controversy’, Bioethics, 16(6), pp. 493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 9.
    Health Council of the Netherlands (2002) Stem Cells for Tissue Repair: Research on Therapy (The Hague, 27 June), p. 46.Google Scholar
  15. 9.
    G. Pennings and A. Van Steirteghem (2004) ‘The Subsidiarity Principle in the Context of Embryonic Stem Cell Research’, Human Reproduction, 19(5) (May), pp. 1060–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 9.
    The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission (2000) Adoption of an Opinion on Ethical Aspects of Human Stem Cell Research and Use (Paris: European Commission, 14 November) (Opinion N° 15), p. 14.Google Scholar
  17. 10.
    National Bioethics Advisory Commission (1999) Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research (Rockville, MD: NBAC, September), p. 53.Google Scholar
  18. 12.
    The validity of the principle in this context can be questioned for several reasons. First of all it is unclear whether this presupposed hierarchy is defensible. Second, the principle may be anti-ethical in the sense that it implies that we have to follow existing public opinion, whether this is well argued and well informed or not. Third, people make a different evaluation of the available scientific evidence, and also have a different approach to the decision as to whether a certain line of research should be deemed ‘necessary’. Opponents of ES cell research claim that alternatives exist, which do not require the ‘instrumental use’ of human embryos. However, we can ask ourselves whether it isn’t misleading to present every alternative, which does not use embryos, as a priori superior. For comparative ethical analysis a number of relevant aspects should be taken into account, including the burdens and risks of a certain method, the chances that the alternative options have the same applicability as ES cells, and the costs and the time scale in which useful clinical applications are to be expected. Finally, it is said to be a reasonable principle in policy decisions, but is it as reasonable as is said when we know that it leads to delay in the development of treatments that can alleviate the suffering of thousands, maybe millions of people? Holm, ‘Going to the Roots of the Stem Cell Controversy’; P. A. Roche and M. A. Grodin (2000) ‘The Ethical Challenge of Stem Cell Research’, Women’s Health Issues, 10(3), pp. 136–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 13.
    R. Lovell-Badge (2001) ‘The Future for Stem Cell Research’, Nature, 414(6859), pp. 88–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 13.
    C. R. Cogle et al. (2003) ‘An Overview of Stem Cell Research and Regulatory Issues’, Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 78, pp. 993–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 14.
    B. E. Edwards, J. D. Gearhart and E. E. Wallach (2000) ‘The Human Pluripotent Stem Cell: Impact on Medicine and Society’, Fertility and Sterility, 74(1), pp. 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 16.
    R. Doerflinger (1999) ‘The Ethics of Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research: a Catholic Viewpoint’, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 9(2), pp. 137–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 16.
    W. Friend (2003) ‘Catholic Perspectives and Stem-cell Research and Use’, Origins, 32(41), pp. 682–6Google Scholar
  24. 16.
    J. Oakley (2002) ‘Democracy, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, and the Roman Catholic Church’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 28(4), p. 228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 18.
    These terms are used in R. M. Green (2001) The Human Embryo Research Debates: Bioethics in the Vortex of Controversy (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  26. 19.
    G. Pennings (2002) ‘Reproductive Tourism as Moral Pluralism in Motion’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 28, pp. 337–41, and (2004) ‘Legal Harmonization and Reproductive Tourism in Europe’, Human Reproduction, 19(12), pp. 2689–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 20.
    R. Lorenzi (2003) ‘Italy Approves Embryo Law’, The Scientist, 12 December.Google Scholar
  28. 25.
    G. Pennings (2002) ‘Reproductive Tourism as Moral Pluralism in Motion’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 28, pp. 337–41, and (2004) ‘Legal Harmonization and Reproductive Tourism in Europe’, Human Reproduction, 19(12), pp. 2689–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 26.
    S. Arie (2004) ‘Italians Force Referendum on Fertility Law’, Guardian Unlimited, 1 October. At: www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,12576,1317232,00.htmlGoogle Scholar
  30. 27.
    A. Haverty (2003) ‘Ireland Divided on Stem Cells’, The Scientist, 26 November.Google Scholar
  31. 28.
    See, for example, the National Institutes of Health (2000) Guidelines for Research Using Human Pluripotent Stem Cells (Bethesda, MD: NIH).Google Scholar
  32. 28.
    German National Ethics Council (2001) Opinion on the Import of Human Embryonic Stem Cells (Berlin: German National Ethics Council) (under the heading ‘specific arguments in favour of the import of human embryonic stem cells’).Google Scholar
  33. 29.
    Letter from HHS Gen. Counsel Harriet Rabb to Harold Varmus, at that time Director of the NIH on ‘Federal Funding for Research Involving Human Pluripotent Stem Cells’, 15 January 1999.Google Scholar
  34. 30.
    G. J. Boer (1999) ‘Ethical Issues in Neurografting of Human Embryonic Cells’, Theoretical Medical Bioethics, 20(5), pp. 461–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 30.
    G. Pennings (2003) ‘Ethical Issues Regarding Embryonic Stem Cells’, in Lectures in Medicine: Embryonic Stem Cells, organised by the Belgian Faculties of Medicine (Brussels: AZ-VUB, 6 February).Google Scholar
  36. 31.
    Opponents of the use of foetal cells, or tissues obtained following clinical abortion, claim that all those who isolate and use the foetal material are accomplices in the preceding abortion and that it will lead to an increase of the number of abortions. Advocates of foetal tissue research claimed that these objections could be bypassed by guaranteeing a separation between the act of abortion and the use of foetal material for research and therapies. Many countries have tried to guarantee this separation by imposing conditions on the performance of abortions and on the donation of fetal tissue in laws and regulations. A. F. Shorr (1994) ‘Abortion and Fetal Tissue Research — Some Ethical Concerns’, Fetal Diagnosis Therapy, 9(3), pp. 196–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 31.
    J. C. Rankin (1990) ‘The Fetal Tissue Debate on Complicity’, Hastings Centre Reports, 20(2), p. 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 32.
    R. K. Zimmerman (2004) ‘Ethical Analyses of Vaccines Grown in Human Cell Strains Derived from Abortion: Arguments and Internet Search’, Vaccine, 22, pp. 4238–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 33.
    American Association for the Advancement of Science and Institute for Civil Society (1999) Stem Cell Research and Applications: Monitoring the Frontiers of Biomedical Research (Washington, DC, November), p. 9.Google Scholar
  40. 38.
    R. A. Charo (2001) ‘Bush’s Stem Cell Compromise: a Few Mirrors?’ Hastings Centre Reports, 31(6), pp. 6–7.Google Scholar
  41. 40.
    A. M. Capron (1999) ‘Good Intentions’, Hastings Centre Reports, 29(2), pp. 26–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 46.
    H. Gottweis (2002) ‘Stem Cell Policies in the United States and in Germany: Between Bioethics and Regulation’, Policy Studies Journal, 30(4), pp. 444–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 47.
    M. Castle et al. (2003) ‘Letter to President Bush on Stem cell Research from 11 House Republicans’, 15 May. www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/stem-cells/stemhsltr.shtmlGoogle Scholar
  44. 48.
    R. Faden and J. Gearhart (2004) ‘Facts on Stem Cells’, Washington Post, 23 August, p. A15.Google Scholar
  45. 49.
    R. Weiss (2004) ‘Approved Stem Cells’ Potential Questioned’, Washington Post, 29 October, p. A03.Google Scholar
  46. 50.
    A. M. Capron (2002) ‘Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Ethics and Politics in Science Policy’, in Shui Chuen Lee (ed.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference of Bioethics (University of Chungli, R.O.C. Taiwan, June), p. V–12.Google Scholar
  47. 51.
    J. Harris (2003) ‘Stem Cells, Sex and Procreation’, Cambridge Quarterly of Health Ethics, 12(4), pp. 353–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 54.
    See John Harris (2003) ‘Stem Cells, Sex and Procreation’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 12(4) (Fall), pp. 353–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 56.
    A. Caplan (ed.) (1992) When Medicine Went Mad: Bioethics and the Holocaust. (Totowa, NJ: Humana Press)Google Scholar
  50. 1.
    P. Hoedeman (1991) Hitler or Hippocrates: Medical Experiments and Euthanasia in the Third Reich (Sussex: Book Guild);Google Scholar
  51. 56.
    B. Muller-Hill (1988) Murderous Science: Elimination by Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies, and Others in Germany, 1933–1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press)Google Scholar
  52. 56.
    R. J. Lifton (1986) The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide (New York: Basic Books).Google Scholar
  53. 57.
    In this section we have benefited from discussions with Dan Wikler. See also John Harris (2003) ‘Stem Cells, Sex and Procreation’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 12(4) (Fall), pp. 353–72; and (2004) ‘The Great Debates — Julian Savulescu and John Harris’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 13(1) (January), pp. 68–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 57.
    John Harris’s contributions to this debate: ‘Sexual Reproduction is a Survival Lottery’, pp. 75–90, and Julian Savulescu and John Harris (2004) ‘The Creation Lottery: Final Lessons from Natural Reproduction: Why Those Who Accept Natural Reproduction Should Accept Cloning and Other Frankenstein Reproductive Technologies’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 13(1) (January), pp. 90–6.Google Scholar
  55. 59.
    See J. Harris (2003) ‘Stem Cells, Sex and Procreation’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 12(4) (Fall), pp. 353–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 60.
    J. Harris (1992) Wonderwoman & Superman: The Ethics of Human Biotechnology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 47.Google Scholar
  57. 61.
    This point has been developed in some detail in J. Harris (2002) ‘The Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells in Research and Therapy’, in Justine C. Burley and John Harris (eds.) A Companion to Genethics: Philosophy and the Genetic Revolution (Oxford: Basil Blackwell), pp. 158–75; and in J. Harris (in press) ‘Stem Cells, Sex and Procreation’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.Google Scholar
  58. 62.
    J. R. Richards (1982) made this point well in The Sceptical Feminist (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books). Note also the similarities between this argument and Athanassoulis’s point on the sanctity of life in Chapter 8 in this volume.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Katrien Devolder and John Harris 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katrien Devolder
  • John Harris

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations