Senate Majority Leader Frist threw logical coherence down the tubes yesterday in announcing his belief that life begins at conception, that human life is sacred, but that some lives should be terminated in the interest of fertility therapy and/or stem cell research and/or Frist's presidential campaign.
Frist acknowledged in his floor speech yesterday that the embryos from fertility therapy that he proposes to use for stem cell research are human beings that are being destroyed. He said: “I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete -- yes, immature -- but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It’s genetically distinct. And it’s biologically human. It’s living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn’t just a matter of faith. It’s a fact of science.” It stands to reason that a doctor and scientist would understand that conception is the point at which we become persons. He isn’t hobbled by the caveman, old testament literalist, anti-scientific knowledge, stance of those who support legal abortion.
So Frist’s position is:
These embryos are persons.
But, they’re going to be destroyed anyway.
Since they’re doomed, lets at least use them to develop cures for diseases.
He’s making an extension of the arguments that support the ethical donation of organs for implantation. The key difference is we don’t kill people for their organs. As Frist has framed the debate the core ethical issue isn’t: “Should we use embryonic stem cells for medical research?” But rather: “Should we create and destroy multiple embryos in fertility therapy programs?”
Under Frist’s ten principles, if fertility therapy is outlawed then embryonic stem cell research folds as well.
If we should do away with fertility programs as they result in the creation and death of individual humans, should we use the scientific fruits of those programs pending the possible abolition of those programs? A parallel question would be: If we should do away with the death penalty as it results in the death of individual humans, should we use the scientific fruits of the condemned (organ and tissue donation, cadavers used for medical school research and teaching) pending the possible abolition of the death penalty?
Frist doesn’t challenge the core tenet of the pro life argument (We become individual persons at conception.) rather, he says “For whatever reason, we seem to be okay with destroying humans in the course of fertility treatment programs, so let’s make use of the human victims of those fertility programs.”
So then the questions become: “Is using doomed embryos for stem cell research a morally neutral act as those embryos are doomed anyway?” and “If the creation and destruction of embryos in fertility programs is wrongful killing does approval of the use of those embryos for stem cell research make that killing potentially more attractive and thus make those who support use of those embryos for stem cell research complicit in the wrongful killing?”
Bush stopped a step short of that. He approved research using stem cell lines created up to the time of his announcement. Rather than the condemned inmate analogy, Bush’s philosophy is analogous to using the scientific and medical knowledge gained from inhumane, painful, and deadly experiments conducted on Nazi concentration camp prisoners since the process of experimenting on prisoners was stopped.
But Frist also undermined his own position and provided the building blocks for an alternative approach in his speech. He noted that, to date, “adult stem cell research is the only type of stem cell research that has resulted in proven treatments for human patients.” But, he also said that “embryonic stem cells -- because they can become almost any human tissue (“pluripotent”) and renew and replicate themselves infinitely -- are uniquely necessary for potentially treating other diseases.”
So, while the benefits of adult stem cells are actual, the benefits of embryonic stem cells are only potential. That’s not to say the potential isn’t significant nor that it will not be realized. But neither is that a guarantee that the potential will ever be realized.
Frist noted that “because of promising research not even imagined four years ago. Exciting techniques are now emerging that may make it unnecessary to destroy embryos (even those that will be discarded anyway) to obtain cells with the same unique “pluripotential” properties as embryonic stem cells.” Again, as with the benefits of embryonic stem cells, the techniques that could vitiate the need to kill embryos are “promising” and that promise may not be realized.
Until the promise of the techniques to get cells with pluripotential properties without killing embryos is known I think we should push federal money to adult stem cell research and research into the four non-deadly avenues Frist identifies including:
1. Extraction from embryos that are no longer living;
2. Non-lethal and non-harmful extraction from embryos;
3. Extraction from artificially created organisms that are not embryos, but embryo-like;
4. Reprogramming adult cells to a pluripotent state through fusion with embryonic cell lines.
In so doing we will continue to support proven, non-lethal, stem cell applications (adult) and be able to pursue the next level of stem cell therapy (cells with pluripotential properties) in ways that don't benefit from nor support the killing of humans.
