Motive is bottom line in stem-cell debate

by Chris Tindale

Last May, health minister Alan Rock opened hearings into draft legislation that will form the basis for Canada's first law on reproductive technology: The Assisted Reproduction Act.

This is a very important initiative. While other countries have introduced legislation governing aspects of reproductive technology, like human cloning and stem-cell research, Canada has remained in a legal and moral vacuum. A Royal Commission to study reproductive technology was established in 1989, and its report four years later made a series of wide-ranging recommendations. But none of these was acted upon, and now there is a sense that whatever Canada does, it will be after the fact. Still, late legislation is better than none at all.

Two issues that often become confused are human cloning and stem-cell research. The weight of opinion strongly opposes human cloning, and Canada's draft legislation proposes a ban on this, along with gender selection and the commercial production of embryos. But opinions remain divided on the desirability and morality of stem-cell research. On the one hand it promises tremendous goods; on the other hand, it requires the destruction of human embryos.

The stem cells in question are the blank-slate cells present at the earliest stages of life. These have the potential to grow into any part of the human body. But once they begin to divide, their role in the body becomes fixed and this potentiality disappears. Stem-cell research thus requires the use of embryos in the earliest stages of development. These embryos have to be obtained from somewhere, and the primary candidates are human cloning, commercial production, or the embryos left over from fertility treatments. The proposed legislation rules out the first two options but would allow for the third under licensed conditions. Herein lies the debate: should we use surplus embryos for stem-cell research?

Research on embryonic stem cells is still in its early stages, but already it holds the promise of breakthroughs in a number of treatments for repairing damaged tissues and organs or growing new ones. An individual in need of new brain cells, or nerves, or an organ could hope eventually to receive one through this technology. For many this is welcome news. Few of us do not know someone who has been affected by Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or diabetes. While quite recent research has shown that so-called adult stem-cells might be employed in some instances, these are not as versatile as those taken from embryos and are more difficult to identify and procure. George Bush's rationale for recently allowing limited embryonic stem-cell research in the States is the hope that other sources of stem cells will eventually prove equally valuable. But even researchers working with adult stem cells recommend that both types of research continue.

The argument for not proceeding rests mainly on the destruction of the embryos used in the research. These are human embryos and many people believe that no matter what benefits might derive from their use, the destruction of human embryos is morally wrong. Questions that have arisen with similar issues, like 'when does human life begin or become significant?', come into play here. Some believe that the significance is there from the moment egg and sperm unite; others do not see it until the onset of the possibility of mental life with the beginning of the nervous system around 14 days.

Surplus embryos that are the by-products of fertilization treatments currently exist and deciding not to use them in beneficial research still leaves the question of what, in fact, to do with them. Canada's proposed legislation, while setting a 14-day limit for maintaining embryos outside the body of a woman, is silent on what to do with the many embryos that are not implanted. Multiple embryos are produced in case those implanted do not develop or in case the individuals involved desire another child later. But far more are produced than could be used these ways. There seems little doubt that most will end up being destroyed in one fashion or another, and if that destruction is inevitable, it seems unethical not to use them in research that promises concrete benefits for so many.

Are we in this way in danger of "playing God"? This depends on how we understand our own role. Humans have not been able to create life, but we have found different ways to reproduce it, just as we have found ways to prolong it by interfering with the natural processes of diseases or illnesses, or the effects of accidents. Stem-cell research is proposed as a further step in the exercise of human creativity and ingenuity in controlling our own welfare. The bottom-line must lie in the motives behind our actions and whether they contribute to a positive quality of life for as many people as possible.

Back to Trent News


Trent's CrestReturn to Trent Home
Maintained by the Communications Department.
Last updated November 13, 2001