More on Stem Cells

Columnist Paul Greenberg writes, “Didn’t this pro-life president himself authorize research on stem cell lines derived from already destroyed embryos? The moral of that story: One step down this slope quickly leads to another.”

Mr. Greenberg goes on to quote Robert P. George, a law professor at Princeton who served on the President’s Council on Bioethics: “Researchers know that stem cells derived from blastocyst-stage embryos are currently of no therapeutic value and may never actually be used in the treatment of diseases…In fact, there is not a single embryonic stem cell therapy even in clinical trials. By contrast, adult and umbilical cord stem cells are already being used in the treatment of 65 diseases. All informed commentators know that embryonic stem cells cannot be used in therapies because of their tendency to generate dangerous tumors.”

Considering Mr. Greenberg’s sentiments about the “slope” and Mr. George’s information about the apparent useless (and potentially dangerous) continuation of embryonic stem cell research, why do so many seem willing to allow the United States to continue? Why do some polls suggest that roughly 70% of Americans are ok with this, given the considerable unanswered ethical questions and as-of-yet-not-thought-of scenarios?

Are we on a quest? If so, what are we looking for so much so that we are apparently willing to play God by taking one life in favor of another, and with no real or evident potential? And would we eventually reach a point by which we would draw the line and say, “no further”? It seems to me that there are apparently no limits to what we will allow in our desperate search for immortality.

Mr. Greenberg also counters the argument of those embryos “already destroyed” and will be discarded anyway by asking whether we would be willing to stop there. Why not the terminally ill? Why not convicts incarcerated for life or death-row inmates? Well? Why not? When we challenge the validity or value of human life by suggesting that a greater good could be served for “more” lives to be saved by destroying the only true potential that exists at this point, what is it that we are already suggesting about human life?

I am not completely without sympathy for those who suffer from debilitating diseases and I am not at all opposed to medical research within certain limitations, and the limitations as defined by the Nuremberg Code of Medical Ethics is a good place to start … and stop.

Human life has unknown value until that life is given an opportunity to live and to grow into its full potential. If the Lord God knew Jeremiah even before he was formed in his mother’s womb, there is a better-than-average chance that a soul is indeed present and life is already in full bloom with unseen potential. But that potential and value cannot be measured or realized in what might be gained from its death. Potential is measured in life by how that life unfolds and develops. Deliberately destroying that life before its full potential can be realized in the off chance that something more may come from its demise is unthinkable and immeasurable.