A Stem Cell Primer
Stem cells are simply the more "primitive" totipotent (all potent) or pleuripotent (partially potent) cell lines that develop in a human embryo shortly after fertilization. The resulting "zygote", or embryo then experiences multiple cell divisions and proceeds through various stages of development. The 5-8 day stage is usually referred to as a blastocyst. At the earliest stages, these cells preserve the ability to differentiate (develop) into any type of tissue contained in the body of the human being. The "totipotent" cells even maintain the ability to become cells which "nourish" the early embryo, the "pleuripotent" cells are those which are restricted to the cell lines "destined" to be a part of the actual body of the human being. It is for this reason that they provide so much interest to biologists and researchers, (since they can be "altered" in various ways through bioengineering).
These "pleuripotent" stem cells are found in embryos and to a lesser extent in the organs of adult humans beings such as in the bone marrow, and liver, as well as in fetal umbilical cord blood from normal obstetrical deliveries. etc. They can theoretically be "stimulated" to become any type of cell or organ of the body, and many have actually been used to produce various cell lines and the "rudimentary precursors" of actual human organs. For example, If a liver, heart, or brain is needed, one could theoretically be "grown" in the laboratory from these early "embryologic" stem cells.
Unfortunately, the only way to procure, or "harvest" them from embryo's is by destroying (sacrificing) them at various early stages of development, unlike those from adults which can be taken without harm to the individual. In the past, the embryos subjected to sacrificial "harvesting" have been obtained from in-vitro fertilization clinics after the "parents" (of the embryos) have decided not to have them implanted into the mother. The argument used is that they will be discarded (killed) anyway so why not obtain some useful (utilitarian) purpose from them. Unfortunately, this eliminates the possibility that an infertile couple could "adopt" the embryo, have it implanted in the wife of the couple, and thereby give birth to a normal human child, not the genetic product of their physical union. This option has been employed successfully and agencies exist which help couples arrange for this type of embryo adoption.
While this obviously begs the question regarding the moral or ethical wisdom involved in in-vitro fertilization in the first instance, it is obvious that embryo adoption is an ethically and morally superior alternative to killing the embryo's for the purpose of "harvesting" their tissue.
Now that the science community and their various supporters are lobbying hard to gain federal funding for this destructive research, there will not be enough embryos available even if all the potential sources of in-vitro fertilized embryos are exhausted. Therefore, scientists are also asking to be able to "manufacture" more embryos in petri dishes for the express purpose of "growing" them through various nuclear cell transfer techniques, (a type of human cloning) and additional in-vitro fertilization techniques and the like, and then subsequently sacrificing (killing) them in order to obtain (harvest) their stem cells, and to obtain federal government funding to pay for it. This of course is totally morally and ethically indefensible, and is a violation of basic human dignity and the right to life.
The human embryo is fully human from the moment of conception, irrespective of where that conception occurs, and where (in a physical sense) that the embryo happens to reside for a finite period of time, (whether inside or outside of the body of it's mother). The human biological implications of this, as well as the basic reproductive medical science has been known for decades. To deny embryos the right to life on the basis that they are "expendable" in the name of a "greater moral good" (the potential curing of disease in older human beings "further along in physical development") is completely unacceptable and is an example of the "culture of death" typified by abortion, euthanasia, and suicide.
A superior alternative to destructive embryonic stem cell research exists in the form of adult stem cell research, which has been much more clinically successful to date, not associated with harmful side-effects, free of moral and ethical prohibitions, and free of the associated need for immunosuppressive medication. As Christians, we must be crystal clear that the practice of destructive embryonic stem cell research is not consistent with the 2000+ year position of the church that Christ instituted after his resurrection and ascension, and must actively speak up for the rights of those who are unable at present to speak for themselves. To fail to do so is a grave sin as members of HIS mystical body, in the author's opinion. I urge all citizens but particularly Christians to call, write, and lobby their legislators as well as the President of the United States, and express your moral outrage over human medical research involving destruction of Human embryos. Consider signing the DO NO HARM petition at www.stemcellresearch.org.
Cordially,
J.P. Hubert MD
© Content Copyright 2001 Comprehensive Christian World View Ministries All Rights Reserved.
Ref.:
Statement Summary by the Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics.
On Human Embryos and Stem Cell Research
Released July 1, 1999
Stem cell research promises great good and is a worthy scientific priority as long as we pursue it ethically. Obtaining stem cells from people without seriously harming people in the process can be ethical. However, obtaining stem cells from human embryos cannot be ethical because it necessarily involves destroying those embryos.
1. Human embryonic stem cell research violates existing law and policy: State: Homicide laws of all 50 states protect human life and the dignity of every human being--especially the vulnerable; laws of many states already specifically protect vulnerable embryonic human beings outside the womb; most prohibit destructive human embryo and human fetal research. National: The present Congressional ban on federally-funded human embryo research explicitly excludes "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death"; existing laws requiring separation between the death of an unborn child in abortion and research objectives using the unborn child's tissues preclude the destruction of human embryos as a means of achieving research objectives. International: Documents such as the Nuremburg Code, the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki, and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights reject the use of human beings in experimental research without their informed consent and permit research on incompetent subjects only if there is a legal surrogate, minimal risk, and therapeutic benefit for the human subject.
2. Human embryonic stem cell research is unethical: Recent history provides tragic examples of attempts to justify gross violations of the rights of human beings in medical research on the utilitarian basis of "social and medical benefit": the Tuskegee experiments on African Americans, U.S. government-sponsored radiation research, the Nazi medical war crimes, etc. Good ends (e.g., health) do not justify the use of unethical means (e.g., killing human beings). Scientifically, the international consensus of embryologists is that human beings begin at fertilization (or cloning)--i.e., when their genetic code is complete and operative; even before implantation they are far more than a "bunch of cells" or merely "potential human beings."
3. Human embryonic stem cell research is scientifically unnecessary: Other research methods which use stem cells from adults to develop treatments for many diseases have recently been successful; in fact, the British Medical Journal (1999) has concluded that, in medical research, human embryonic stem cells "may soon be eclipsed by the more readily available and less controversial adult stem cells." The use of a patient's own stem cells is even preferable to using embryonic stem cells because it avoids the problem of the body rejecting cells other than its own.
Other new methods such as somatic cell gene therapy are increasingly successful in tissue regeneration and otherwise treating disease. Necessary Next Steps:
Congress should maintain the existing ban on harmful federally-funded human embryo research and make explicit its application to embryonic stem cell research.
Congress should provide federal funding for the development of alternative treatments which do not require the destruction of embryonic human beings.