In the wake of President Obama lifting the Bush administration's bans on stem cell research, the ethics of "destroying life" to save lives has been discussed ad nauseum. Typical of the rhetoric being produced is this article by the Tribune's John Kass. After comparing the use of embryos to help treat degenerative diseases to a dying man, Kass closes with an open ended remark: "And what happens to us, as we take other lives, in order to live?"
I think the most pertinent issue here is what our operating definition of life is. Clearly, what Kass and many theologians and political conservatives refer to is human life. At the same time, we're discussing the ethics of scientific research, and in its most reduced form, all life is sustained by the metabolic processes of the living cell. From a scientist's perspective, life is defined by the ability of the cell to efficiently sustain these functions.
However, if this is our operating definition, then what we take as life, and the protections we offer it, has to be extended much further than human life. In terms of the cell, the difference between human cells and those of animals, plants, bacteria, and other organisms is not much more than variations in genetic and protein content. And yet, we don't have much of a problem destroying bacterial, yeast, plant, and animal life for the purpose of scientific research. Our understanding of life would not have been made possible without these experiments, and so we tolerate some destruction for our ultimate benefit.
What, then, makes human life different from other life? Almost all religions have a concept of soul, which is the standard in differentiating humans from everything else. This is usually what the counter arguments to stem cell research, and the sanctity of human life, refers to. And yet, in a secular society, this isn't an acceptable operating standard. Not all religions limit the concept of soul to humans only; in Hinduism, essentially every organism, from the merest Protista to the most complex animal, contains some sort of soul. On the other hand, atheists deny such a concept entirely. It would be un-Constitutional to use one soul standard over another in the United States.
Given that, our official definition for life should more closely resemble the scientific one. Stem cell opponents will argue this will lead to all sorts of human experimentation and human cloning, the sort of behavior we associate with science-fiction stories. I don't buy this. Humans appear to have built-in moral sensors, and appear to find reprehensible any experimentation involving a human well-developed enough to resemble one of our species (there are exceptions to this, and it is that minority that has helped create this debate). With stem cells, we are utilizing a mass of cells that represents about 4-5 days of growth post-fertilization. The mass can hardly be differentiated from a colony of bacterial cells, and yet contains the potential to improve the quality of life of many fully-formed human beings.
We tolerate the destruction of life continuously to benefit our species. Is this sacrifice not worth the outcome? Don't take my word for it; next time you meet a sufferer of diabetes, Alzheimer's Disease, or Parkinson's, ask them how they would enjoy a life without these debilitating afflictions.
I think the most pertinent issue here is what our operating definition of life is. Clearly, what Kass and many theologians and political conservatives refer to is human life. At the same time, we're discussing the ethics of scientific research, and in its most reduced form, all life is sustained by the metabolic processes of the living cell. From a scientist's perspective, life is defined by the ability of the cell to efficiently sustain these functions.
However, if this is our operating definition, then what we take as life, and the protections we offer it, has to be extended much further than human life. In terms of the cell, the difference between human cells and those of animals, plants, bacteria, and other organisms is not much more than variations in genetic and protein content. And yet, we don't have much of a problem destroying bacterial, yeast, plant, and animal life for the purpose of scientific research. Our understanding of life would not have been made possible without these experiments, and so we tolerate some destruction for our ultimate benefit.
What, then, makes human life different from other life? Almost all religions have a concept of soul, which is the standard in differentiating humans from everything else. This is usually what the counter arguments to stem cell research, and the sanctity of human life, refers to. And yet, in a secular society, this isn't an acceptable operating standard. Not all religions limit the concept of soul to humans only; in Hinduism, essentially every organism, from the merest Protista to the most complex animal, contains some sort of soul. On the other hand, atheists deny such a concept entirely. It would be un-Constitutional to use one soul standard over another in the United States.
Given that, our official definition for life should more closely resemble the scientific one. Stem cell opponents will argue this will lead to all sorts of human experimentation and human cloning, the sort of behavior we associate with science-fiction stories. I don't buy this. Humans appear to have built-in moral sensors, and appear to find reprehensible any experimentation involving a human well-developed enough to resemble one of our species (there are exceptions to this, and it is that minority that has helped create this debate). With stem cells, we are utilizing a mass of cells that represents about 4-5 days of growth post-fertilization. The mass can hardly be differentiated from a colony of bacterial cells, and yet contains the potential to improve the quality of life of many fully-formed human beings.
We tolerate the destruction of life continuously to benefit our species. Is this sacrifice not worth the outcome? Don't take my word for it; next time you meet a sufferer of diabetes, Alzheimer's Disease, or Parkinson's, ask them how they would enjoy a life without these debilitating afflictions.
No comments:
Post a Comment