Medical Ethics and Embryonic Stem

Medical Ethics and Embryonic Stem Cell Research

In the United States, a debate over stem cell science evolved in the last two decades of the 20th century. By the turn of the 21st century, conservatives succeeded in pushing strict limitation on the use of federal funding through Congress that excluded the most promising avenues of stem cell science: embryonic stem cell research. In the U.S., that has the same effect as an outright ban, simply because more than 90% of institutional medical research is funded by government grants and not private funding.

Meanwhile, just the tip of the iceberg of stem cell science has already provided significant therapies for numerous human diseases and demonstrated tremendous future potential for other medical applications. It is apparent that stem cell research probably holds the key to the first effective treatment for human cancer, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, and dozens of other debilitating diseases. It is equally clear that stem cell science will eventually provide methods of restoring lost limbs and even enable the growing of replacement organs from tissue that is genetically identical to the patient.

Several specific lines of argument have been offered to support ethical opposition to embryonic stem cell research: (1) that human embryos are already entitled to "personhood" and protected rights because human life begins at the moment of conception; (2) that only God can rightfully create or destroy human life; and (3) that stem cell research is a "slippery slope" away from human cloning and irresponsible genetic breeding.

In between conception and birth, the fertilized human egg develops through many stages, including the first stage of cell mitosis during which the zygote consists of only a few individual cells containing genetic information. Certainly, there is a period much later in pregnancy where a fetus has developed enough human characteristics and senses to argue in good faith that the fetus is entitled to the same rights as a newborn infant. However, to make that argument on behalf of an undeveloped zygote requires specific logical justification. Instead, the main basis of the concern for the zygote is the religious belief about when human life "begins."

The problem with that belief as the basis for public policy is that it violates the fundamental constitutional principle of (1) separation of church and state and (2) equal protection. The belief that human life begins at conception is perfectly legitimate as a personal of religious belief; but it is not an appropriate factor in American law. Recognizing the religious beliefs or definitions in law is a violation of the constitutional rights of every person who does not share those religious beliefs.