EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH

Introduction

Many people have been advocating and supporting the use of stem cells to research possible cures to Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, heart aliments and a wide variety of diseases and conditions.  It is the hope of these people that a way can be found to use this type of cell to end the pain and suffering of these people.  The debate has taken many forms from congressional hearings to television commercials with celebrities.  Almost all of them avoid the fundamental issue of just what and where these stem cells come from.   During the second debate of the 2004 presidential debate series, John Kerry and George Bush were each asked about their stand on issue of embryonic stem cell of research and their support for public funding.  John Kerry said that he would fully support the research as well as full public funding.  However, George Bush responded “we've got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and the science” and “to destroy life to save life is -- it's one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face.” [1] This paper present two arguments for the immorality of embryonic stem cell using the writings of Thomas Aquinas and well as some of the philosophical interpretation of his works.

The Technology and Proposed Use

What are embryonic stem cells?  After fertilization, the zygote (fertilized egg) begins to grow, divide, and develop.  During the development but before it implant itself on the wall of the uterus; the cells have differentiated into two different kinds, an inner and outer cell mass.  The outer cell mass, or trophoblast, becomes the placenta and other support organs between the mother and the developing child.  The inner cell mass is called the embryoblast or embryonic stems, will for the body of the child.  At this stage the cell are all exactly alike.  Each of them is capable of create a complete organism. It is at this stage the researchers want to harvest these cells.[2]  Another way to look at it is, these stem cells are the building blocks for body of the human. 

What is the research?  The zygote is allowed to grow until the trophoblast and embryoblast are formed. Then it is harvested, that is the cell mass is torn apart and the cells are separated. The embryoblasts are saved and stored while the rest are discarded as biological waste.  It is hoped that researchers can take these embryoblasts, the building block cells, and insert them into a person. Then somehow force these cells to rebuild injured or damaged tissues. Much like the way they build these tissues in the early developmental stages of a child in the womb. 

Argument One – The Sanctity of Human Life

As Christians, we are obligated to use the Bible to show us the word of God.  The Bible has many references telling us that taking a life is murder and that murder is morally wrong and punishable by death.[3]  So, if the taking of an embryo is not to be considered murder, then that embryo must not be human.  Aquinas is very clear that humans are a special creation of God that have two parts, a physical body and a spiritual soul._[4]  Aquinas states that all souls were created in the first works,[5] which means that all souls were created and have existed since God’s creation as told to us in Genesis.  But for a human life to begin the soul and body must be joined.^[6]   This act of joining the body and soul in the developing human is called ensoulment.  Now, the question is ‘when does ensoulment occurs?

Reading over Aquinas’ writings on the following questions: Q31 - Q36[7], these questions all deal with the creation of the physical body of Christ: his conception, development, and birth.   The people of Aquinas’ time where very strong observationalist and in touch with their world around them. They understood the connection between the sex act and procreation.  Not every sex act resulted in a pregnancy but they knew there was some kind of mixing of the male semen and the female receptacle.  Some time after the sex act, they could feel the animated child growing in the woman’s uterus, usually around 3 months or so.   It was at this stage they believed the human life to have begun. This gap, in time, between the sex act and feeling the movement of the child is referred to as "delayed ensoulment". Today, modern science has examined this gap of time in great detail.  We understand the conception, development, and birth process in far more detail than people in the middle ages.  We now know developmental steps between the zygote and the animated child and clearly the pathway of development and such should be treated as a living human being at the time of conception.

The concept of delayed ensoulment of the embryo has been used tacitly or sometimes explicitly many times in our public policy debates.  The Supreme Court in the Roe vs Wade decision one point that they had to decide was when did human life begin.  This idea of delayed ensoulment  was considered  in their decision. The justices decided that human life began sometime after conception but before birth. Therefore,  a legal abortion could be performed in the early stages of pregnancy.   This concept has carried over to the issues of using embryos  for bio-medical research.   

 This position has been position had been defended by John Haldane and Patrick Lee.[8]  Both are professors of bioethics at different universities.  In this article, the authors hold the position that if Aquinas had the correct information about the early procreation process that he would have come to the same conclusion that the soul comes into the body at the time of conception and with the soul the theological virtues are instilled.  Their argument for was to support the sanctity of life in cases of abortion. But the sanctity of life argument holds here as well here where an embryo is being destroyed for research purposes.

Argument Two – The Decision of Self-Sacrifice

Aquinas saw sacrifice not special virtue but as an act of special praise,[9] a way to offer glory to God particularly, if it was done for the right reasons.  As a society we value and honor those that have made the ultimate sacrifice, their own lives so that other may live.  One such example was during the Virginia Tech shootings.   Professor Liviu Librescu held the door of his classroom shut while Cho (the gunman) attempted to enter it. Professor Librescu was able to prevent the shooter from entering the classroom until most of his students escaped through the windows, but he died after being shot multiple times through the door.[10]   Allen Mikaelian[11] profiles several military men that have been recipients  the Medal of Honor for the heroism and self-sacrifice.  The majority of awards of the Medal of Honor have been made posthumously.  The ultimate example of sacrifice for others was Jesus Christ.  Jesus became man, endured the hardships of humanity, and then suffered and died as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world. The common thread in all of these examples is that each of these people had made a free will choice about their sacrifice.  They choose their course(s) of action which resulted in their deaths but in the saving of the lives of others.  

 From argument one of this paper, it follows the embryo is a human life no matter how that embryo was created: natural with a sex act between and man and woman, in a woman via artificial insemination, or in a laboratory test tube.   If these stem cells are to be harvested, that life must be sacrificed to obtain the cells.  Now we have the situation where someone else decides that this life, or more accurately, a group of lives are to be sacrificed for the potential good of others.   The books by Feinberg and Feinberg[12]  and Tillman,[13]  there is a reoccurring argument used in many of the case studies and is it gets different names depending on the situation (euthanasia, eugenics, abortion, etc).  Fundamentally, the argument boils down to this.  One person or group of people should not make a decision that forces someone else’s self-sacrifice without their consent.

Clearly, the embryo has no choice in being used for research purposes. When the medical people decide to harvest the stem cells, they just do it. They do not ask the embryo what are its wishes. They do not attempt to ascertain if the embryo is willing to give up its life for the potential of saving others.   Hence, they are making a life and death decision for someone else without their input.

Conclusion

Had Aquinas seen the science of today, some of his conclusions would have been different.  The delayed ensoulment of a human would have been updated to reflect the science of today.  Just this fact alone, he would have been very opposed to the destruction of embryos. Even if this type research did find cures to these that some very grave conditions that cause great suffering.  Although it is was outside the scope of this paper, there is a class of stem cells, referred to adult stem cells that are obtained from skin and/or abdominal linings. These adult step cells do not require the destruction of a embryo and they do no pose the ethical dilemma that embryonic cells pose.  These cells are usually harder to obtain because of the lab work it takes to perform the separation, but it can be done.   In fact, there are treatments for cancer based on these cells.[14]