Moral and Legal Questions of Stem Cell Research

Introduction to Stem Cell Research and Its Controversy

Stem cell research is an experimental, research-based study into methods of repairing the human body. By introducing stem cells into a damaged or degenerating area of the body, the medical profession hopes to prompt the body to regrow healthy tissue and repair the damage. Degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease or macular degeneration of the eye's retina are conditions in which healthy tissues cease to function properly. There is no overt damage — no disease has physically destroyed the affected body part — but for varying reasons, such as old age, wear and tear, or causes medical science does not yet understand, the affected body part simply ceases to function properly.

Stem cells are the type of cells that are most numerous in, though not limited to, human embryos. They are the building blocks of the blood and immune systems, and potentially of the nervous system, skin, bones, heart, endocrine organs, and other body tissues. During the human growth process, stem cells divide to create the following elements of the blood and immune systems:

• New red blood cells, which carry oxygen.
• New white blood cells, used in the body's immune system for fighting infections.
• New platelets, which help proper clotting of blood and healing.

Because of stem cells' involvement in the process of growing healthy tissue, scientific and medical research is investigating what role, if any, stem cells can play in rebuilding damaged and degenerative tissue.

The controversy revolves around the fact that these cells are most numerous in human embryos. In order to maintain a ready supply of stem cells, processes are being established to grow and harvest these cells from human embryos. Herein lies the controversy: Is it morally, ethically, and legally proper to create life in one innocent being and then destroy it in order to benefit another? Is the embryo a being? If so, the argument leaves the exclusively legal realm and must also be considered on the basis of moral and ethical principles. If the human embryo is not a being but an unviable tissue mass, then growing and harvesting specific cells is neither a moral nor a legal issue. In that latter case, the only laws needed to guide such research are those already in place governing the research and development of disease-resistant cash crops such as corn and wheat.

President Bush entered this debate and signed into law a tightly limited endorsement of federal funding for research on stem cells taken from human embryos. As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already existed at that time. They were created from embryos that had already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. The President stated: "I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made."

The stage on which this battle is waged provides a clear opportunity to investigate the differing perspectives regarding law and how laws govern our society. Understanding these points of view aids comprehension of the arguments and the motives behind those who approach this quandary from opposing corners of the political spectrum. Understanding these viewpoints also allows a deeper comprehension of jurisprudence and how the motives of involved parties affect change in the legal system that guides the nation.

Four Frameworks of Jurisprudence

Natural law approaches legal issues as questions that descend from moral or divine law. In the questions it considers, natural law looks for the application of absolute and unchanging truth. Those who hold this view of jurisprudence often refer to the "Rule of Law." Laws are resistant to change — if not entirely unchanging — because they are based on moral truth. New situations that arise in the course of human events should be applied to this set of truths in order to determine right, wrong, and a proper legal course of action.

The debate over this view of jurisprudence is most clearly seen in the differing views of this country's legal system, particularly the Supreme Court. One group of justices believes that the Constitution is a static document — purposely open-ended so as to be applied to societal changes while remaining true to the vision and purpose of the founders who crafted it. Indeed, the preamble to the Declaration of Independence was clearly written from the perspective of moral law when it declares: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Life, laws, and the rights thereof are thus a function of eternal rights, given to men from a source of divine law. This divinely revealed truth is not all-encompassing; therefore men must interpret and apply the revealed law to the situations they face.

Legal positivism takes a step to the left politically and holds that while the legal system has its genesis in moral norms, societal norms change over time. With changes in social conscience and as a culture accepts differing philosophical systems, the laws must also evolve and adjust to the current sociological state of the people. Using the above example, the body of justices who believe the Constitution is a "living document" illustrates their view of jurisprudence. The crafters of the Constitution could not have fathomed the direction of the culture, so they deliberately left the document vague so it could be bent, molded, and shaped to fit societal fluctuations. From this body of thought, the concept of "separation of church and state" was read into the Constitution, as was the idea that a woman's right to her own body is the constitutional basis for abortion.

Legal realism is another step to the left of legal positivism. This view of jurisprudence recognizes that laws will be established only insofar as they will be enforced. Laws that judges will not accept are not laws and have no place in the legal code. From this perspective, lawmaking is the process of evaluating the social conscience and designing a code that assists people toward the goals and pursuits that society has already embraced. Legal realism holds that laws are essentially amoral, as mankind is considered responsible for its own moral compass.

The concept of secular humanism, which swept into the educational process during the 1970s, is the everyday outgrowth of such a viewpoint. Secular humanism states that human beings are responsible for determining their own destiny without responsibility to a divine law, a higher power, or each other. As each person seeks his or her own good, the argument goes, achieving society's corporate good will be an unconscious byproduct. This belief has sown and harvested disastrous consequences in our culture. Divorce, drug and child abuse, and violence in the home, marketplace, and schools have all increased since society slowly began accepting this outlook. If one is not responsible to others for one's actions, then each person becomes the sole determinant of right and wrong, and enacting those desires into law becomes merely a formal process by which organized society is guided.

The final step in a descent toward anarchy is the jurisprudence of critical legal studies. This system of belief holds that law is itself a fraud — that laws are only the means by which groups of people gain, assert, and hold power. This system exercises the process of lawmaking in the court of public opinion. If a group of people shout something long enough and loudly enough, the argument goes, that group should get what it wants, and their desires should become law.

A contemporary example of this viewpoint is the dispute over the 2000 presidential election. With one state in question, one party energized its devotees, the media, and the legal system, claiming they had been defrauded. Their process of recounting the ballots was, in effect, a process of challenging legal ballots and counting improperly cast ones. Each time a group of ballots was counted and the numbers were not sufficient to tip the scales, the aggrieved party insisted that the rules for accepting ballots be changed again and the ballots be recounted. By the time the issue reached a court willing to take a socially and politically unpopular position, the entire country was in an uproar. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that the laws in place prior to the election were the laws that would decide the results. The militants who believed that the jurisprudence of critical legal studies would rule the day were proven incorrect.

Applying Jurisprudence to the Stem Cell Debate

In regard to the issue of stem cell research, groups from all four quadrants of jurisprudence have their own perspective, and each has begun a course of action that will inevitably help shape this difficult issue. In reverse order, the supporters of critical legal studies are most represented by the scientists and those who financially back them. These men and women are pressing forward with their work regardless of governmental regulation or threats to financial assistance. Their view is that this research holds positive benefits for mankind and should therefore progress to bring those benefits to the marketplace.

The ethical question over growing and harvesting parts of human beings is entirely overshadowed by press releases that tout miracle cures for dreaded, debilitating diseases. To this group, the question is not whether the research should continue, but how it will continue. When they can say, for example, that Parkinson's disease has been cured or that a family will never again lose someone to Alzheimer's disease, then their work will be justified in their eyes. In light of the President's actions to restrict public funding for the research, private investors have stepped up with their own dollars. Such funding arrangements emerged just months after one major university launched its own stem cell program with $5 million from Intel chair Andy Grove.

Society should nevertheless wonder about the motives behind such decisions. Are these men and women willing to be martyrs in order to cure dreaded diseases, or are they in search of personal reputation? Undoubtedly, some involved in this process have been personally touched by conditions that may be relieved by stem cell research. But what questions, or whose rights, are being ignored because of their zealous pursuit of personal goals and recognition?

Legal realism is holding judgment in this matter, possibly because society does not yet have enough empirical evidence to determine the value of stem cell research. If the targeted diseases are conquered, certainly the benefit to society will outweigh — in the eyes of this school — the value of the embryos that were brought into existence, killed, and harvested in the course of the research. Once a greater number of citizens are positively affected by the fruit of this labor, there will be social willingness to convert this matter into a legally protected status. Until then, the jurisprudence of legal realism is turning a blind eye to the argument, and by refusing to take a position, it is effectively allowing a legally questionable direction to continue unabated.

Unfortunately, the President signed into law guidelines for stem cell research most closely aligned with legal positivism. He recognized that a Pandora's Box had been opened by this research, and that it would be impossible to close it entirely on the basis of absolute moral measurements. George Bush attempted to politically satisfy each group by giving them a small portion of what they wanted while restricting further expansion of the research. He also made broad statements about the value of human life and the belief that no scientific effort should be undertaken that threatens to undermine that value. While the President's position was understandably difficult, his departure from a position of natural moral law was disappointing. In words, he addressed the moral implications of continuing research; in action, he permitted it and offered federal funding to encourage its expansion.

Conclusion

In men's pursuit to govern and guide our society, we must remember that mankind, left to its own devices, will not create a utopia, any more than a farmer's field left to its own resources will produce beautiful and lush crops year after year. We have a bent toward selfish and ultimately self-destructive behavior when left without moral guidance. When men bow to the concept of natural law — the recognition that laws contain an element of divinely revealed morality — they find the guidance needed to curb self-seeking appetites and place the well-being of all others on an equal plane. Then, with Thomas Jefferson, we can dedicate ourselves to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness alongside our fellow human beings, not at their expense.