Stem Cells: Use, Abuse and Personhood

This article is a pretty concise intro to the stem cell issue we face. But it mostly leaves out an important factor in this debate: the status of the embryo.

Utilitarian Reasons
It so happens that adult stem cell therapy is already in human trials (and has been for YEARS), is safe for the patient, has produced amazing results, and doesn’t involve the creation or destruction of an embryo. It so happens. These are good consequences. From a utilitarian perspective, we say “yay, adult stem cell research!”

And it just might so happen that embryonic stem cell therapy is completely unsafe for patients. The very trait for which they are sought after (pluripotency) is the trait that is so destructive to patients (dangerously fast, varied and unpredictable growth). All this with ZERO data from human clinical trials (no, not a reason to start, either). The great hope of the embryonic stem cell is not based on scientific data – but scientific belief (it’s not even knowledge, since it’s hardly proven as true, let alone justified). Hence, these would be bad consequences. From a utilitarian perspective, we say “boo, embryonic stem cell research!”

Deontology, Virtue, Divine Command Reasons
So far, the discussion has been about consequences – or, the net utility that we can predict as the outcome of a given action (or a given kind of stem cell therapy).

I’m suggesting a closer consideration of not just consequences of actions, but the subjects and objects – the MORAL AGENTS – of such actions. The agents: scientists, unique fertilized embryos, non-embryonic stem cells, and patients (and of course, bloggers, politicians and celebrities… ascending order of credibility right? Guffaw.)

Of the agents, there are personal and impersonal kinds. Scientists and patients are unquestionably persons. Non-embryonic stem cells are unquestionably impersonal. The debate revolves around the personal status of the embryo (though I also call into question that of bloggers, politicians and celebrities…).

To be a person, I’d argue, grounds for the inviolable right to life and choice (IMPORTANT: “choice” only insofar as it doesn’t inhibit another’s right).

This is a moral rule (deontology) – one practiced by virtuous people (virtue theory), and commanded by God (divine command): do not abuse or kill persons.

The Point
The utility of consequences (a utilitarian value) should only count when all other things are equal. This, I think is the best way to take other important ethical theories into consideration. And in this situation, things are most certainly not equal: adult stem cell research has great consequences, and uses non-persons – embryonic stem cell research data is up in the air, but let’s say it is the greatest thing since sliced bread… it very well could be abusing and killing persons.

I’m arguing a weak point here (weak in the sense that I’m not even full-out arguing that embryos ARE persons). I do this to get all the scientists, patients, bloggers, politicians and celebrities to simply agree with this premise: fertilized eggs (embryos) COULD be persons.

THIS IS THE ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE AT THE VERY CENTER OF THE EMBRYONIC STEM CELL DEBATE. I’m confused why it’s not.

Consider, if you’ve read this far, dear reader: You’re in the woods on opening day of deer hunting season. You hear a rustle 20 feet ahead, peer through dense thicket at what you think is a deer. But, you’re only 50% sure. You see, you know there are other hunters in the woods, dear reader; you saw them all get out of their pick-up trucks in the woods’ parking lot. Do you shoot the “deer”? Unless you’re Dick Cheney, certainly not! After all, it could be a human that you’re peering at. Now what if you were 90% sure? There’s still a chance that it’s a human. Are you willing to risk it? I don’t think a properly functioning, virtuous person could conscionably do so.

Now, I don’t have much doubt about the status of the embryo. Picking a stage of development as a passage of an organism from non-personhood into personhood is way too arbitrary (and there are many different theories about what stage is enough for the organism to be considered a human person). The safest place is conception. Fertilization of sperm and egg. A unique, genetically distinct organism. Pre-embryo.

But! If there is any doubt about whether the embryo is a person – and there most certainly is – why do we favor discussion about consequences? The PRIORITY should be the question of personhood. If a person, then the answer should be simple: if a person is being abused or killed or both, the action is wrong. If not a person, then, and only then, let us weigh the consequences.