The Slide from Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research to Reproductive Cloning: Ethical Decision-Making and the Ban on Federal Funding

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Rutgers Law Journal

Abstract

"We must prevent human cloning by stopping it before it starts." A mantra proscribing reproductive cloning has filled the Capitol's dome and reflects the latest political morality concerning the direction of reproductive technology and its stopping place. Does that articulation reflect objective reality or mere "read my lips" commentary? The current political climate, as evidenced by several legislative bills, condemns reproductive cloning. But how strong is that political climate? Will it hold the line fast? The answer may depend upon the ethical decision-making philosophy ultimately adopted by the federal government concerning what research it is willing to fund. An immediate reaction might be that the question has already been answered. After all, was it not just a little over a year ago that all eyes were focused on the President: what would be his reaction to the announcement by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that it planned to begin using taxpayers' dollars to fund research on human embryo stem cells? On August 9, 2001, President Bush announced that he had given great care to the decision and "concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made." Federal funds could therefore be expended for research on human embryonic stem cells, but only if those cells were derived from sixty identified existing cell lines. The compromise attempted to strike a balance between a recognized medical ethic that one should do no wrong and the pressure from research scientists to push the envelope on medical frontiers. The issue had become urgent once human stem cells were successfully isolated from human embryos by James Thompson in 1998 and developed into stem cell lines. The debate on federal funding is far from quelled. Barely pausing to sigh, scientists and politicians began efforts to erode the limitation with complaints that existing cell lines were insufficient to fuel the research needs. Additionally, new debates have been sparked with allegations of governmental creation of a "de facto" monopoly on existing lines that have received the necessary imprimatur to qualify for federal funding. Pressure from these camps suggests that presidential straddling of the fence can be no more than a temporary solution-a cork that stops a leak and neglects to weld the underlying structure. The issue on whether federal funds may be expended for human embryonic stem cell research will need to be readdressed. The final solution will reflect an underlying decision-making ethic. One model, a utilitarian ethic, focuses on consequences of actions, or the "good end." If pressure from camps who draw attention to the potential benefits to Man's health prevails, funding will be expanded to all stem cell research, in accord with the utilitarian perspective. Should the good consequences of overall human benefit be the overriding concern that drives the decision? One may recall that those same utilitarian motives propelled the scientific research on concentration camp prisoners. Most clinical and medical research decisions are appropriately made by applying the utilitarian perspective, but is there something different about the subject matter of research on human embryonic stem cells that warrants the application of a different decision-making ethic? Unlike most medical research decisions, the stem cell issue involves research that directly flows from the destruction of embryos and could not occur without that act. The rightness or wrongness of that act is judged by each individual in accord with some deeply felt moral intuition. Some believe that those sorts of decisions-those that concern our deeply felt moral intuitions-are not suitably predicated on a utilitarian, consequentialist approach. This may be especially true where our scientific technology grants us such great power and where we are not sure of the "goodness" of its use. In such instances, a deontological ethical theory may be preferred because it correlates better with the social morality. Under the deontological approach, a duty of right action substitutes for right consequences as the governing focus. If the latter decision-making ethic is adopted, no human embryonic stem cell research would be funded with federal taxpayer money because it would interfere with a social morality that condemns the destruction of embryos to harvest their stem cells. When the issue of federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research is readdressed, any attempt to duplicate the August 2001 nondecision would be classified as a decision to fund all human embryo research. Such soft-peddling would, in reality, reflect an incremental move toward full federal support. If the utilitarian perspective is ultimately applied, this article suggests that the resultant commitment of federal monies to fund human embryo stem cell research will lead inevitably to the expenditure of governmental monies to fund cloning research for purposes of producing a clone child.

First Page

463

Last Page

512

Publication Date

Winter 2003

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS