…an ethicist when I grow up. 🙂 Last month it was a political commentator, this week bioethics. Just continuing to expand my horizons.
My sister in love Christine emailed an article to me this week that she thought I would find interesting. She was right 🙂 . This article takes on a new edge to ESCR – one that I have heard little bits about but hadn’t formed an opinion on yet. This is still newer information and I don’t have much to go on in commenting but since this will probably be highlighted in the media in the months to come, I thought I would get on the cutting edge and submit my comments now 🙂 .
Here is the article if you want to read it first.
Following are my notes for deciphering the ethics on this:
Situation: Scientists claim to have found a way to create stem cell lines from blastocysts when in the 8 to 10 cell stage of development by removing only ONE cell and leaving the rest of the embryo intact. They claim that the embryo can continue developing normally post removal of one cell. (Make sure you read the article for a more thorough understanding of this if your interested).
Pro’s (For the sake of this pro list, I am going to assume this article was accurate and will list the pro’s from the perspective of those in favor though I will list my doubts later).
1. The pluripotent embryonic stem cells could be used for research without compromising the life of the new human.
2. “Promising” research could continue without displays of legislative debates on morality.
3. Taxpayers may vote to fund the research.
Con’s
1. The first thing that jumped out at me in the article was this quote:
“So far, scientists have obtained embryonic stem cells by taking groups of cells from early embryos before they implant in the uterus. However, this process involves the destruction of the embryo.
Lanza’s new paper improves on research his team did last year. In that study, the Massachusetts group succeeded in cultivating mouse embryonic stem cell lines by removing just one cell from the mouse embryo. The procedure is similar to that used for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, used to check for genetic disorders during in vitro fertilization (IVF). In this case, the mouse embryos survived.
But then, a roadblock. “We tried to apply that to a human system and found that it does not work,” Lanza said. “We had to work out a different technique and initially we weren’t sure that it was going to work. It was pretty tough. Eventually it worked like a charm.”
Key word “eventually”…how many living human individuals lost their lives in this experiment to begin with? Was that ethical?
2. Assuming that it is absolutely true that the embryo is not compromised at all by the removal of one cell, is it ethical to force living donation without permission of the doner?
3. I for one doubt very much that this removal is as benign as quoted. How would you prove that? I remember our embryologist telling us that even if a few of the cells of any given embryo had been damaged by the cryo process, the embryo COULD go on to develop normally. He teasingly said “Just because a cell has died doesn’t mean the child will be born without an arm.” However, this embryologist was not able to say that because A cell had died the child WOULD live…only that it COULD. Therefore, do we KNOW beyond shadow of a doubt that we aren’t jeopardizing the life of the embryo by removing cell(s)?
Here is a scenario: You have three 10 celled blastocysts. All three have one cell removed making them 9 celled blastocysts. Twins are born, one is miscarried. Why did baby three miscarry? Would the scientific community KNOW that the third child didn’t miscarry BECAUSE of the cell removal? Would they use the survival of the twins to prove cell removal irrelevant? Twin survival wouldn’t prove that. It could simply indicate survival of the fittest. Who is to say the 9 celled embryo wouldn’t have continued development had the cell removal not happened? For example, some may say the abortificient quality of birth control is “bunk” because some people do carry children to term after conceiving while on birth control. Because SOME survived does not prove that others weren’t so lucky. Following me?
4. Jim and I don’t believe in “growing” embryos to begin with. The reason that embryos are grown to a blastocyst stage is that the assumption is if they are healthy enough to survive outside of the womb to a blast stage, they have a better chance in the womb. This allows Dr.s to narrow down their picks for transfer to the “healthiest” embryos. Survival of the fittest at its best (or worst). Who is to say that the embryo that died during the grow process wouldn’t have lived if it was at home in mama in it’s God ordained environment? By the way, Tanner was frozen as a 2 pro nuclei embryo. He was not grown. Our Dr. therefore had no way of knowing if Tanner was a “healthy” embryo or not. Often times in this scenario they will ask the parents to allow them to grow the 2 PN embryo to a blast before transfer. If they survive that long, the transfer has a better chance. If they don’t, you don’t spend money on a transfer that would “likely” have been unsuccessful (according to their reasoning). Our Dr. did not ask us to grow them but we were already prepared to say NO to this. So, if this research can only be done at the blastocyst stage, is that putting embryos at risk? Jim and I believe yes and the medical community has not been able to sufficiently convince us otherwise. When in doubt, you don’t jeopardize life.
5. Are these embryos from a fresh transfer or are they cryopreserved? If cryopreserved (which I would assume based on the quantities scientists would want), cryopreservation itself can cause cell death. Cryopreserving an embryo may cause death. We know this first hand – that was the cause of death for one of our children. Thus why Jim and I don’t support cryopreservation.
6. In order to get the embryos in the first place, we are putting women on potentially harmful drugs to increase egg development. Another thing I have first hand experience with.
7. I confess to being a skeptic but I do not think this new form of research was performed out of respect to embryos. It writes as though saving the life of the embryo would solve all ethical dilemmas. It doesn’t say though how these scientists are getting the embryos in the first place? Are we supposed to believe that only embryos on their way into the womb are having a cell removed? My point…there is a whole other ethical dilemma involved with creating embryos for research. Even if scientists invented a “but we didn’t kill the embryo” loop hole, that is not to say that the embryo post cell removal is going straight into mama’s womb. It may be going right back in the freezer at risk all over of abandonment and or cell death from the freeze. For this reason, I doubt this new research was ever promoted by conscious over human life…I think it is more likely that scientists gave their research a face lift to get ESCR through legislation and the end result will be embryos on demand with no respect for allowing the embryo the opportunity to continue development to birth. How does this respect life?
So….for now…this “compromise” will not satisfy me. It is not ethical to perform research on any living human without their express permission. Adult stem cell research has had phenomenal results and is totally ethical. Let’s be compassionate and choose the win-win!!!
UPDATEat 11:30 PM: Another snowflake mom sent me THIS refuting article tonight. Maybe I SHOULD be an ethicist because we both said essentially the same things. 🙂
10 responses to “Maybe I’ll Be…”
I believe they are MOST DEFINITELY crying “ETHICAL ANSWER!” now so that the completely UNethical, and obviously so (at least to some of us), forms of stem cell research will be funded with our tax dollars… it’s a loop hole that eventually will mean funding because not all will even be educated on the differences between different types of research… they’ll slip through if they get everyone believing there is an ethical route. a slippery slop indeed.
Doni – I agree 100% with everything you said. With scientists and the media so set on finding a way to pursue ESCR – it would be nice if this were the answer, and embryos would not have to be destroyed. Unfortunately, I still think that this puts these embryos lives at least in questionable danger, which is not worth the risk. I really do not understand why they are so set on embryo stem cell research when adult stem cell research has proven to provide more results. It doesn’t take a genious to figure out – “go with what works”; especially when what works will save not only the lives of those who need a cure, but will prevent lives from being lost in the process. I keep reading that “these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway” – and that is true. What I really wish I could do is convince people to let these babies have a chance at life. Unfortunately I don’t think we will ever change the minds of the scientists or media – but how do we on a larger scale show the general public, especially parents of frozen embryos that there is another alternative for these embryos – one which gives them life and a future. I am really happy about the grants that were given a couple of years ago to try to educate the public about embryo adoption, and I am very proud of our President and his stand on this matter, and I am very thankful for you and the other parents who have taken a public stand for these babies. It just frustrates me that the media makes ESCR out to be the answer to all problems, and so little is said about embryo adoption and what an awesome thing it is.
Actually the “they are just going to die anyway” argument is not entirely true. That is another method for convincing an uneducated audience that ESCR is the “right” thing to do “under the circumstances”. Number 8 on my Top Ten Arguments list (under the ESCR pages):
Of the 400,000 embryos cryopreserved, only 2.8% of those embryos have been determined available for research by their parents. Only 25 % of these 2.8% would survive to the blastocyst stage necessary for stem cell removal. This means that of the small percentage that is technically available in the entire United States as of this date (May 2005), the maximum number of stem cell lines that could be created would be 275. Scientists will agree that is not enough for what they want. They will have no choice but to pursue therapeutic cloning as their next step. (Side Note: Tanner frozen at a 2 PN stage and was transferred into my womb when he was at a 4 cell stage. If Tanner would have been given to research, scientists would have actually had to GROW Tanner another 3 to 5 days in order to remove his stem cell. He was transferred into my womb before he was even old enough to have his stem cell removed. Interesting?)
It is really sad that the public is so misled, because most people only hear these stories through the media which is biassed their way. I was thinking that there are lots of embryos that are frozen whose parents have decided not to let them go to someone else. Even if they don’t go to science, they still don’t get a chance at life and that is sad to me. I want to fight the battle of science and politics – but I don’t know that they will ever truly see our point or know how we feel because they haven’t been in our shoes, and their concerns are different than ours. But I think most of the mommies out there who haven’t decided what to do with their “leftover” embryos – would be more likely to choose life if they were better informed of their choices about embryo adoption vs. any other option which only results in death. With ESCR in the news and on the political agenda – we definately need to let our voices be heard. We call our congresswoman on a reg. basis as well as some others in our state to let our voice be heard that ESCR is wrong and we want all votes to go that way. We need to take a stand for what is right and not allow them to use our tax dollars to do something so wrong. I had read an article about this new discovery yesterday and started out thinking about the scientific and political viewpoint, but ended up with a heavy heart for all the frozen embryos that will perish for any reason because they are simply not given what they need to continue their life – a womb to grow in. Has anyone done any polls or studies recently to see if there has been a decline in embryos being frozen to begin with or an increase in the number of embryos given for adoption? By the way, I think it is totally AWESOME that Tanner was so “little” – God loves us all and has a plan for us no matter how small 🙂
Doni,
This is Dana Altman, I live in Brookhaven, MS, and I have been following your postings since Ty was born. I have TRULY enjoyed reading about your family and following Ty’s progress. Your faith is AMAZING!!
I know this has NOTHING to do w/your last post, but I just wanted to ask you to pray for this family in their time of need. It is so sad, and I know you know how/what they’re feeling about now… 🙁
http://www.alisonrogers.net
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRAYERS!!
Do you not believe that God himself is giving these scientists the ability to think and do their work? Do you not think that if God disapproved of what the scientists are doing, that they would then fail?
God is almighty. Nothing happens that he does not know about.
Judy – yes God gives the ability to think – but we as humans often misuse it. God knows about everything that happens, but that doesn’t mean that he approves of everything he sees. Does God not know about all the crime in the world, etc. You don’t see criminals falling dead on the streets, yet God doesn’t approve of what they are doing. He doesn’t work like that.
Good point Shauna…. justice will come in time but it isn’t always immediate as much as we would hope for it. God sees and knows and gives free will.
Ever thought about being a “Beth Moore” when you grow up? 🙂
Melissa – LOL. Well who knows!!!
Judy – Based on your argument, the Natzi experiments were moral. I think the Nuremberg Code is important for all to read. I’ll post that. Yes God is absolutely sovereign – but we must never confuse his choice of inaction with permission. If that were the case, there would be no law. Also, this is the second time you have suggested that ESCR is fruitful. To fairly continue these conversations, please submit evidence that ESCR has had beneficial results in ANY human trial. The media has been diligent in convincing the public of embryonic stem cell’s “magical” properties and incredible future but the fact is THERE HAVE BEEN ZERO SUCCESSFUL TREATMENTS FROM ESCR and over 60 from SUCCESSFUL from adult stem cells. Your comment and previous comment suggests you believe that scientists have not and will not fail. That is a very premature assumption right now. (It is also not the point).