Framework #1: Protecting the Early Embryo
The first moral framework we call the embryo protectionframework. The most prominent issue in the public
debate about stem cell research is the moral status of the embryo. People have
asked: should an embryo be granted the same moral status as a human person? The
embryo protection framework takes this as the principle moral concern; this
concern functions as a moral frame for understanding and interpreting all of
the stem cell debate.
This framing of the ethical question begins with the origin
of stem cells. The destruction of the blastocyst takes center stage. Many who
operate within this framework take the zygote as having a moral status equal to
that of any other person. They argue that the destruction of the blastocyst is
tantamount to taking a human life. Insofar as human embryonic stem cell
research requires the destruction of a blastocyst, it is held to be morally
illicit, regardless of the potential good it might offer.
On what grounds might we think the early embryo possesses a
dignity that forbids scientists from harming it? The most sophisticated account
is provided by Vatican Catholics. It ties together ensoulment,
dignity, moral protection, and genetic novelty. This position, articulated
already in the 1987 encyclical Donum Vitae provides
the foundational moral logic for what would later become the official Roman
Catholic position on the stem cell debate. Donum Vitae argues
that three elements are crucial to the creation of a morally defensible human
individual: the father’s sperm, the mother’s egg, and a divinely implanted
soul. Donum Vitae notes that at fertilization a
novel genetic code - neither that of the mother nor that of the father - is
created. Donum Vitae takes this genomic novelty to be
evidence of the presence of a unique individual, and thus reasonably the moment
of ensoulment. Ensoulment
is the event which establishes a divine moral claim, so that the destruction of
the blastocyst constitutes not only murder but an
offense against God’s creation. Alleged empirical evidence that the early
embryo has this divinely ascribed status is the uniqueness of the person-to-be’s unique genetic code. Once a unique genome has been
established, then it is morally incumbent on us to protect it from harm.
The orienting bioethical principle of the embryo protection
framework is “nonmaleficence” - that is, “do no harm.” To take a life (the life
of the developing zygote in this case) violates the do no harm principle.
According to many working within this framework, our first ethical
responsibility is to forestall stem cell research. Those who support stem cell
research are accused of disrespect for the value of human life. Foremost among
those who frame the debate in this way are Roman Catholic spokespersons and
some outspoken Protestant American evangelicals.
When the
issue is framed this way, those who support stem cell research must argue that
an early embryo or blastocyst is not a ‘human person’ and that destroying it is
not equivalent to murder. These arguments can be difficult to make. If the
blastocyst is not yet fully a human person and therefore protectable,
when does a developing zygote become protectable? The
public debate has largely raged over this question; the embryo protection
framework has set the terms of the debate. Because so much public attention is
given to this framing, we sometimes fail to notice that voices speaking out of
two other frameworks are trying to be heard.
Email
link | Printer-friendly | Feedback
| Contributed by: Gaymon Bennett, Karen Lebacqz and
Ted Peters
|
