What makes a person? At what point do we become sentient beings?
On July 15th, 2004, an article was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine about the ethics of embryonic cloning. Much of the center of debate on cloning lies in the morality behind the act of therapeutic cloning, or the formulation of human embryos for research purposes. The author of this article, Michael Sandel, discusses and compares both the argument supporting the idea that embryos are classifiable as persons, and the argument that embryos are not sentient creatures and thus should not be classified as persons.
The article opens making the point that it would be rare to find a doctor, or any person who, “would dispute the idea that respect for human dignity imposes certain moral restraints on medical research.” The ultimate question is does the “destruction of human embryos in stem-cell research amount to the killing of human beings?” This question is immeasurably complex and underlies the foundation of one of the most prominent ethical debates of this time.
The movement against stem-cell research is often referred to as “embryo objection,” and the supporters of this movement believe that “extracting stem cells from a blastocyst is morally equivalent to yanking organs from a baby to save other people’s lives.” In essence, they believe that a cell in the embryonic stage is due the equivalent rights and treatment as a fully developed baby. Those who hold this belief may do so simply because of their personal moral belief, or it could be the result of one of many possible religious beliefs, an example being that “ensoulment occurs at conception.” The author notes that there are those who do not try to defend their beliefs on a religious base, but simply state that all of us begin life as an embryo and therefore, if our lives are worthy of respect, so are those of the embryos. These persons argue that the value of our lives does not increase with age. I agree with the author in that while these can be strong moral arguments, they are theoretically and scientifically unfounded.
The author gives an extremely suitable analogy comparing embryos and humans to acorns and oak trees. He states that, “Although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front yard as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree felled by a storm. Despite their developmental continuity, acorns and oak trees are different kinds of things. So are human embryos and human beings.” The importance of being sentient, or being aware of being alive, is the major difference between human beings and embryos. The point in development at which a human being becomes sentient is undefined, but it is highly unlikely that it occurs during the portion of time that these embryos are being used.
In addition, the author states that there seems to be a mentality among those opposing embryonic research that those of us who do support embryonic research would treat embryos without care, and view them with indifference. The author points out that this is not true, and that “one need not regard the embryo as a full human being in order to accord it a certain respect. To regard an embryo as a mere thing, open to any use we desire or devise, does, it seems to me, miss its significance as potential human life.” I completely agree in that it is important to recognize the potential of embryos, and to recognize that yes, we did all originate from the same form that we are trying to manipulate and that it is due a certain degree of respect. However, it is important to remember that while embryos are potential humans, they are not humans. They are “potential.” They are not yet self-aware and sentient. We are not using them to make cosmetics, or create a new unnecessary product- we are using them to help try to find a way to save the lives of living, sentient people.
I encourage anyone interested in the morals of therapeutic cloning to read this article. The author, Michael Sandel, has a doctorate degree in philosophy and provides lots of other interesting arguments that challenge the conventions of the stem-cell research debate.
S. Sneed
No comments:
Post a Comment