June 16, 2005
Understanding The Stem Cell Debate Part II - In-vitro Fertilization
The rancorous debate currently swirling around the use of embryonic stem cells to research cures for some of the world’s most vexing disease’s, is one I cannot seem to disengage myself from. This is partially due to the fact that the fair majority of arguments against this promising research are so morally vapid, and devoid of common sense.
Those who oppose the use of embryos for stem cell research totally disregard the harm In Vitro Fertilization-the process that creates the embryos in the first place-does to unwanted embryos and those that do not take in the uterus and die as part of the process.
How many embryos are killed during the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) process for just one couple trying to conceive a baby? Isn't that the destruction of life? And yet not one Republican lawmaker and very few on the Christian Right have spoken out against the process. Dubya (President Bush) recently had a multitude of "snow-flake" babies (those babies conceived of donated embryos) to the White House for a photo opportunity to demonstrate that frozen embryos can still create life. But missing were the numbers of embryos that were destroyed in the process of creating the cute little snowflakes.
Up to four embryos can be implanted in the uterus during a typical IVF procedure; this is to ensure that at least one attaches itself to the uterine wall and becomes a viable baby. If the other three embryo's do not take, they die. Again isn't this the destruction of life? And aren't couples that engage in IVF destroying life in order to make life? How many embryos does the average couple go through before conceiving a child or children, in the case of multiple births?
According to the CDC-the government agency charged compiling national statistics for all Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) procedures performed in the U.S., IVF only has an average 30.9% success rate. The ART report (from Year 2002) also found that about 69% of the IVF cycles carried out did not produce a pregnancy, and as the age of a woman increases, the chances IVF will work drop dramatically. And that even when IVF was performed on women under the age of 35 the success rate was less then 50%; I invite you to read the report entitled 2002 Assisted Reproductive Technology Rates National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports.
How many dead embryos do these statistics represent nationwide? And again, where is the outcry from the conservative camp about this brazen-and some might call it cavalier-disregard for human life? Where is the moral outrage from the Christian Right about this abomination; where is the indignation; where is Rick Santorum? Oh the hypocrisy is palatable and tastes oddly bitter, especially to those suffering from chronic diseases (like myself) who might find hope in a cure from research done with embryonic stem cells.
Perhaps it's because I am personally affected by the outcome of embryonic stem cell research that I feel so passionately about the debate. Or perhaps it's because I loath hypocrisy as one of the lowest forms of intellectual laziness, and self-induced ignorance. Or perhaps it’s because I value science over religious dogma (make no mistake this in a debate that springs from the fertile yet misguided minds of the religiously inclined); or perhaps it's a combination of all three reasons and many more I cannot name. But this remains a debate I cannot lay down because it insists on standing up and shouting that this issue stinks of wrong-headed politics and conservative religious doctrine. And we the American people lose once again.
From the other perspective, that of those who need in vitro fertilization, the stem cell debate is equally troubling. Italy has passed a law that:
granted the same rights to an embryo as to a child; one that banned most experimentation on fetuses; one that allowed couples to create no more than three embryos, all of which must be implanted at one time without genetic testing; and one that banned couples from using eggs or sperm donated by other people.
Opponents of the law tried to get it overturned, but the Catholic church encouraged its members not to vote, so that the necessary 50% of eligible voters required for a referendum to pass would not be met.
I’m afraid that this is the path we are on, where not only is stem cell research banned, and abortion outlawed, but the ability to create life for those who desperately want children may hang on some legislator’s opinion of what “moral” means.
Sorry, here’s the source for the above quote.
Posted by: brian poole at June 16, 2005 10:33 AMA volatile issue to be sure. The combination of Stem Cell research as a potential launching pad to curing several (not many and not mine) diseases at this point and IVF as a vehicle to provide opportunities for birth among women otherwise unable to conceive, IMO causes personal positional conflict among both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice advocates.
For example, I am a right leaning conservative and am Pro-Life, with the exceptions of rape, incest, etc. That does not mean that I fully support every aspect of a Pro-Life position as you might say that the Evangelical Christian Right does. My Pro-Life position is very strong primarilly in the abortion scenario.
I know that you can draw comparisons to abortion being the same thing as Stem Cell and IVF and say that I am a flip-flopper and a bunch of other names that you will conjur up.
With proper controls and parameters I have to say that I am in favor of Stem Cell research and IVF. In fact I have friends whose children are the result of IVF. That said, I do not favor 100% federal funding for Stem Cell research.
If a plan were developed that would put private and federal spending on some type of sliding scale based on progress and/or success rates and, the details could be worked out as to which diseases are addressed first I would be fully supportive.
Posted by: steve smith at June 16, 2005 11:15 AMV.E.M. -
The public debate, as you well know, is not whether to legalize stem-cell research. It’s whether or not it should be publically funded.
Those who oppose all stem-cell research are a minority (and most of them also oppose IVF as well). However, many of us in the middle are slightly uncomfortable with the idea, since it’s so close to things we know are wrong, like cloning.
I think the current system is a good compromise: an issue is morally unclear, some Americans are for, some against, and some undecided. So we let people follow the dictates of their conscience, but don’t force them to fund an industry they oppose/are ambivalent about. Makes sense to me.
Posted by: Chops at June 16, 2005 12:46 PMChops, there are those like the Family Reseach Council who poltiically do have intentions to illegalize embryonic stem cell research. Therefore, the public debate does include the topic of legalization or criminalization.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 16, 2005 12:57 PMI totally agree with you on this, Poole. For all those ultra conservative and nutty, unreasonable Christian Right Freaks… maybe the good book is missing a few pages. Opps, I stand corrected. The good book is actually missing a few chapters. The entire belief system is based on some loose gospels complied by some nuts 2000 before. And you want to base your judgement on that???? If I’m not mistaken, was there a conservative republican senator recently said that he is going to respecfully diagree with the President on the stem cell issue. Matty’s point is that these republicans (and possibly demoncrats) are all loosers. They change their positions (if they have any)as if there is no tomorrow. Another example is Nancy and her sons - did I heard that she is supporting stem cell research now! What kind of Bull Shit is this?? OH NO, the disease strike my beloved husband and it is a long good bye, and so now I support destroying the embryos instead? These people do not know what the F**K they are talking about. They have no view points at all. Listen folks, no social issue is absolute black and white. It never has been. The bottom line is - relax people. No medical procedure is divine scantion. The higher power does not want you to live forever. If you have taken medication one form or the other to extend your life, then god has nothing to do it.
Posted by: Matty at June 16, 2005 01:03 PMDavid said:
Chops, there are those like the Family Reseach Council who poltiically do have intentions to illegalize embryonic stem cell research. Therefore, the public debate does include the topic of legalization or criminalization.
By that rational, segregation is still on the table and so is euthenasia and the gold standard. None of the above is a risk to become the majority viewpoint or to become law. Same with banning stem cell research.
Posted by: Chops at June 16, 2005 01:16 PMChops—
I can see your view point, but does it make economic sense not to fund this research and let other nation pull ahead of us? Don’t we risk our moniker of the world most advanced medical society by letting upstarts like South Korea beat us to the stem cell punch?
Chops, the same was said of Blacks voting after the Civil War, or of desgregation in the 1950’s. Get a grip guy, tons of stuff that appeared to be impossible are facts of life today. The Family Research Council is backed by some heavy contributors, an ever growing national network under various guises, and many public policy organizations.
You may not see it as a risk. I and many others do. That makes it a part of the public debate, whether you wish argue the point or not.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 16, 2005 01:48 PMExamining the abortion/stem cell/in vitro issue, it seems to me that both sides tend to forget that the creation of human life is a process rather than an event. It doesn’t occur at either conception or birth; it occurs when a fetus is capable of sustaining its own life ex utero: viability.
Any reasonable person has to recognize that the difference between a zygote moments after conception and a fetus moments before birth is a difference of kind, not degree. Any other conclusion yields a host of contradictions.
For those who believe that human life begins at conception, how can the nature of that act effect the nature of the life it creates? Doesn’t the embryo created by rape and/or incest merit the same protection of the law as the embryo created by loving parents? If the Fourteenth Amendment is to be revised from “all persons born” to “all persons conceived”, the equal protection clause would mandate that any law that denied a fetus due process on the grounds of its conception would be grossly unconstitutional. The syllogism is inescapable: if human life begins at conception, then every fetus is a person, and if every person merits the equal protection of the law, then every abortion must be murder.
Furthermore, those that believe that human life begins at conception would have to resolve at least three less serious but nevertheless interesting enigmas:
1. Why doesn’t any society in the world (or throughout recorded history, to the best of my knowledge) hold funerals for miscarriages?
2. Should America revise its citizenship laws to include all persons conceived in the United States?
3. When will President Bush begin celebrating his “Conception Day” instead of his “Birth Day”? (I’m sure H.W. and Barbara would get a big kick out of that one.)
Conversely, pro-choice advocates must understand that the point at which viability occurs is the point at which the fetus assumes a right to life (and health) that supercedes the mother’s right to privacy and hence choice. They must spearhead legislation that would punish anyone, including the mother, that intentionally or recklessly kills or injures a healthy human fetus during the last trimester of gestation. As Supreme Court Justice Blackmun wrote in Roe v. Wade,
” … state regulation protective of fetal life after viability … has both logical and biological justifications.”
Once they do so, perhaps they would gain a sufficient degree of moral capital to induce the more lucid “pro-life” proponents to join with them to compel the federal government to support stem-cell research.
From gamete to zygote to embryo to fetus, the laws of society must reflect the laws of nature to retain their moral validity. Equating fertilized eggs with human beings is to equate possible and existing human life. To delay or obstruct stem-cell research and in so doing deny suffering and dying Americans the results of its potentially miraculous cures in order to sustain the dogmatic orthodoxy of an archaic, erroneous and unnatural definition of human life is unconscionably cruel.
Posted by: Chuck H at June 16, 2005 02:25 PMHow many embryos are killed during the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) process for just one couple trying to conceive a baby? Isn’t that the destruction of life? And yet not one Republican lawmaker and very few on the Christian Right have spoken out against the process. Dubya (President Bush) recently had a multitude of “snow-flake” babies (those babies conceived of donated embryos) to the White House for a photo opportunity to demonstrate that frozen embryos can still create life. But missing were the numbers of embryos that were destroyed in the process of creating the cute little snowflakes.>
You raise a good point about how IVF kills multiple embryos when implanted.
To their credit, the following pro-life leaders have spoken out about this:
Posted by: Eaglet at June 16, 2005 02:41 PMChuck—
I well reason argument if ever I heard one!!
Eaglet—
I applaud any pro-lifer who is willing to address the IVF issue with the same argument in which they approach the abortion debate.
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at June 16, 2005 03:37 PMChuck H.~
1. Why doesn’t any society in the world (or throughout recorded history, to the best of my knowledge) hold funerals for miscarriages?
If you knew anything about it you would know that they do!
Most of them are larger fetuses called “stillborn”. Same difference.
No Traci, not same difference. Most miscarriages occur during the menstrual flow and go unnoticed, and often uncelebrated.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 16, 2005 04:18 PMYes David, it is! No one is quite sure why a miscarriege happens or a stillborn. Their terminology only differentiates the fact that one is expelled out w/ your period and the other is either removed by a doctor or you carry it until you go into labor and have it naturally!!!!! In both cases the fetus dies before birth and your right, most women will not have a funeral for a maxi-pad but a friend of mine just had one not to long ago for her 5 Mo. old stillborn!!!!!!
Posted by: Traci at June 16, 2005 04:34 PMConsidering the definitions of when life actually begins, the waste of embryos during IVF and in the process of stem cell research and, miscarriages occuring during menstrual flow, does life begin at conception and so on I wonder about the following.
1. What catagory does masturbation fall into? Is it the potential waste of life, should it be regulated, etc. I am not Catholic but I think their church has some opinions on that.
2. I know its risky to quote numbers and percentages without a link or proof beyond a shadow of a doubt I will just say that recently I saw a documentary on the dilemma facing the sperm donor organizations. They evidently have a “ton” of excess material that has been freezing for years. I believe they are even faced with having to dispose of it.
Posted by: steve smith at June 16, 2005 05:43 PMTraci,
My sympathies for your friend’s tragic loss.
To clarify matters, however, the Oxford English Dictionary defines miscarriage and stillbirth as follows:
Miscarriage:
“The action of giving birth with the loss of the foetus, esp. in the period before a live birth is possible.”
Stillborn:
“Of a foetus: born lifeless, dead at birth or before the completion of delivery, spec. at a stage when normally viable.”
Not to get hung up on semantics, I would contend that the birth of a five-month old fetus is a miscarriage, not a stillbirth. Nevertheless, by “miscarriage” I meant the natural termination of a pregnancy prior to the viability of the fetus.
Other than that, I agree with you. I simply think that the law must differentiate among possible, presumptive and actual human life just people differentiate among miscarriage, stillbirth and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). All three of the latter three events are tragic, but they are fundamentally different.
Gametes have the potential to create life. When they are joined together to form a zygote, that potential increases. When the zygote attaches to the uterine wall to form an embryo, that potential increases yet again. As the fetus develops, its potential to become a human life continues to increase until the point at which it reaches viability. Before it becomes viable, in the eyes of the law it must be considered to be part of a woman’s body, and hence, the state has no more right to regulate abortion than it has to regulate any other medical procedure. However, once it attains viability it has become presumptive human life, and the state not only has a right but I would contend that it has an ethical obligation to protect fetal life and health.
Pro-life proponents must recognize a that a pregnant woman has a fundamental right to privacy prior to the viability of the fetus, and pro-choice proponents must recognize that a viable fetus has a fundamental right to life and health after viability. When this occurs, I hope that we can put the whole abortion issue behind us, support stem-cell research with public funds, and endeavor to improve the quantity and quality of life for living human beings.
Posted by: Chuck H at June 16, 2005 06:10 PMChuck H, I agree with you completely about zygote seconds ofter conception not being equal to a fetus seconds from birth; I have one question though. When would you consider viability occurs? I think it would be when brain development is nearly complete enough to allow for emotions, conciousness, etc… but your opinion might be different.
Also, to everyone, I would like to discourage the term “life” when refering to abortion and Stem-Cells because even sperm and egg cells are technically living as much as an embryo, zygote, fetus, infant or adult for that matter. I would prefer the use of the term independent development or something else along those lines.
Posted by: Warren P at June 16, 2005 07:27 PMIt seems to me that science provides a slippery slope of when life is “viable”. Years ago, a premature baby born at 7 months was not viable. Today, that same baby IS viable, and years from now, who knows what viability will mean.
I dont believe it makes sense to make a declaration on life based on such a slippery slope.
V.Ed’s initial posting on this thread was incorrect in one main aspect, in my opinion. The embryos being implanted do not all result in life, yet no one is killing them. They may die but dying is different from being killed.
I support stem cell research, but based on my research, I find that adult stem cells have a high possibility of success as well. By focusing research on ADULT stem cells, as opposed to embryonic stem cells, any moral/ethical questions disappear. This compromise makes the most sense to me.
Posted by: pl8spinner at June 17, 2005 07:55 AMI think it’s safe to say that a blastocyst consisting of a few hundred cells is a living thing, but it has no consciousness, no organs, no brain. It has the potential to become a living human only if someone is willing to nurture it to full term.
If the blastocyst/embryo is allowed to grow much longer, and organs develop, it is difficult to know where to draw the line. That is, when did this living embryo attain consciousness (no matter how primitive)? However, a few hundred cells of a blastocyst does not yet have sufficient matter and cellular organization to support any level of consciousness.
If adult stem cells could be substituted, we could avoid this ethical and moral dilemma.
If adult stem cells won’t work, then I personally believe the research using blastocysts is ethically and morally OK, because these blastocysts will be discarded, eliminated, wasted anyway.
As for funding from the government; that’s not required, and just helps fuel the opposition. If the potential benefits truly exist, private corporations have sufficient capital, and will undoubtedly fund research anyway. Not just in the U.S., but other countries also.
Also, if and when new cures are developed from stem-cell research, it will be interesting to watch all of those that opposed it, obtain these new cures for their diseases, and then their hypocrisy will be visible to everyone.
Pl8spinner—
Perhaps manslaughter would be a better term then. Based on the research of a lot of doctors who should know adult stem cells are not a viable as embryonic stem cells, hence the push to use them.
To me the moral and ethical questions arise when you allow living human being to suffer when they could possible be saved and made whole again by embryonic stem cell research. Which is more important: the live or the possibility of live? And embryo is not a human being, it is a collection of cells that could given the right set of circumstances, could develop into a human being.
Allowing living, breathing, humans to suffer if there is a chance to prolong their lives make no sense to me.
V. Ed:
I’d beg to differ a bit on the usefulness of adult stem cells.
The main difference as I see it is that adult stem cells are limited to become specific tissue types, while embryonic stem cells can become most tissue types, which would give the ebryonic stem cells an advantage. But…as of yet, this is all still theoretical, while the adult stem cell has already been used to treat diseases.
The attached site gives backup to my point….http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/nov/03112001.html
V.Ed—I will admit to some concern over what happens to embryos NOT used in the in vitro process. If they are considered life, as many say, but are discarded, then that is problematic to the argument against embryonic stem cell research. I suppose if one believes that, then they should push for laws to prevent these embryos from being discarded—-though I’d assume that would bring a whole separate ruckus about.
So, I would suggest again that adult stem cell research has no moral/ethical questions to it, which makes it superior in that vein to its embryonic counterpart. Until the moral/ethical questions are answered satisfactorily, I’d say this is the way to go.
Pl8spinner—
And we’ll never know unless embryonic stem cell research is pursued in earnest.
V. Edward and pl8spinner, this article seems to suggest that you are both right — that both embryonic and adult stem cells hold hope for curing diseases.
But it seems there is also a problem with using both that first needs to be carefully studied.
