Stem Cell Debate at Harvard

Freedom's Ring ^ | February 23, 2005 | Leroy Garrett/Cecil Hook

[edsheppa]

He addresses your hypothetical in the article by making distinctions between social and moral choices one may have to make. ANd he does it quite well.

I didn't find it convincing. I should think all conservatives would agree that in the hierarchy of choice, moral choice must trump social choice.

[hocndoc]

Read all of the posts at the First Things link above for some of my reasoning.

BTW, you forgot the "however" clause I had in the middle of my argument. It was very important: we are not perfect, we make mistakes, we can't know what will happen, our aim is bad ....... sometimes we can't even believe our eyes.....

(I'm going to be away from the computer for the night.)

[edsheppa]

I didn't forget it. It doesn't make any sense. Human fallibility can justify nothing although it explains many things.

You mention, for example, collateral damage. Certainly it is explained by our limitations, but it is justified by the non-collateral damage.

[MHGinTN]

Which type? ... Even successful embryo stem cell therapy won't cure both in a best day. But to kill a living human for body parts is cannibalism, didn't you know?

[hocndoc]

I was using a loose definition of "justify," and should have used your word, "explain."

[hocndoc]

We are already treating diabetes with transplants obtained from cadavers and there has been at least one report of live-donor transplants of the Beta cells that produce insulin. There is strong evidence that there are endogenous stem cells even in insulin dependent diabetics and we hope to find the trigger needed to stimulate them to grow and produce insulin.

And, I believe that we have only glimpsed the possibilities of placental and umbilical cord (non-embryonic) stem cells. If we can stimulate a cell made up of donor DNA and an enucleated oocyte (cloning by SCNT) to divide and differentiate into just the cells and just the amounts that we want without creating a tumor, then my imagination says that we can de-differentiate somatic cells, without returning the cells to any point that could conceivably be "a whole organism at the earliest stage of life."

[hocndoc]

More on justification:

Collateral damage is not actually "justified" in the strictest sense by the intended result. To believe so relies on utilitarian thinking, or "the greatest good for the greatest number of people."

Think of the doctrine of double effect. If you are threatened by an aggressor with a loaded gun who is using a child as a shield, you have the right to shoot the aggressor with a bullet before they shoot you, especially if you believe - and intend - that it will also save the child. It would be wrong to intentionally shoot through the child to kill the aggressor. It would not be wrong to shoot if you believe that you have a clear shot, even though there is a chance that the aggressor will put the child in the way of the bullet, that there is a chance that the child will move unexpectedly, or even that there is a chance that the child will be hit when the bullet passes through the aggressor and ricochets back toward the child. In the first case, you intended to harm the child. In the latter, he is harmed because the aggressor put him in harm's way. (But, I'd bet that your conscience would still bother you.)

A more relevant example would be that it would be wrong for *you* to use a child as a shield or a weapon when your life is threatened by a bad guy.


As humans, we engage in a sort of triage of ethics, knowing that some will die and some will live because of our actions. But we must have the intention of "First, do no harm" before and guiding our wish to do good.

Sometimes, as in the case of the bombing of cities where terrorists are based, or the attempted killing of Hitler in WWII, or the bombings of Japan, we use force that we know will kill. But, we must do our best to intend and to do what we can to protect innocent lives. And, we must be willing to accept the consequences of our actions if we infringe on the rights of others.

One problem I see with abortionists and researchers who kill embryos is the attempt to avoid responsibility for consequences, by denying that the people killed have inalienable rights, or redefining people" and use the force of law to protect them.

They, in effect, use "people" as a shield while threatening other humans they deem as not people.

[edsheppa]

Collateral damage is not actually "justified" in the strictest sense by the intended result.

True. Strictly speaking, it is the bombing that is justified by weighing the consequences of the alternatives, collateral damage being one of them. But I think it's fair to think also of the consequences of the alternative chosen as being justified too.

But we must have the intention of "First, do no harm" before and guiding our wish to do good.

IMO wrong again. One's intention should be to do the least harm or, equivalently, the most good.

In fact, you contradict yourself and agree with my sentiment in your next paragraph - you cannot intend to do no harm by bombing Hiroshima. Truman intended great harm, arguably to many "innocent" Japanese, but only in order to avoid greater harm.

[Lizavetta]

My brother who is a scientist has told me that they have CURED diabetes in mice by taking stem cells from their own fat cells, doing to them whatever it is scientists do, and injecting them into the mice at which time they became insulin producing beta cells. CURED. He feels that in less than 20 years time there will be a cure for humans.