Moral dilema on proposed cloning ban

[Pray4me2]

As many of you are aware, Missouri voters passed a very deceptive amendment to the state constitution last November. Amendment 2 gives a constitutional right to clone and kill human embryos for research. An effort is underway to get an intiative on the ballot in 2008 that would replace the false definition of cloning in Amendment 2 with a true scientific definition of cloning. If passed, this amendment would have the effect of banning the cloning of human embryos in Missouri.

While I am all for a ban on cloning human embryos, I am concerned about the language in the proposed amendment. The line I am concerned about reads as follows:

“Researchers may conduct stem cell research to discover cures for disease and develop stem cell therapies and cures, provided that the research complies with the limitations of this section and the limitations of Section 38(d)”

The stem cell research referred to includes embryonic stem cell research from leftover IVF embryos. While this research is currently legal and is not likely to be outlawed any time soon, I am bothered by supporting an amendment that affirms this right. I believe the above section was placed in the amendment to show voters that those proposing the amendment are not against cures or scientific research. However, if somewhere in the future there is an effort to ban embryonic stem cell research I’m afraid this will be shoved back in our face that we helped create a constitutional right to do this kind of research.

Do I accept this less then perfect language knowing that the net effect would bring great good ( a ban on cloning ) or do I stand back? This is no small dilema for me, I spent hours preparing and giving talks in opposition to Amendment 2 and donated large sums of money and I am unsure of whether to give this kind of support to this propsed amendment. Archbishop Burke has supported this effort.

Archbishop’s letter of support

The proposed amendment

 

[sprout]

I haven’t yet read the proposed ammendment but before I do I would like to point out that not all stem cell research is unethical.

Here’s a link to “The Ten Great Myths in the Debate Over Stem Cell Research” by Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.

Myth 1. Stem cells can only come from embryos.

In fact stem cells can be taken from umbilical cords, the placenta, amniotic fluid, adult tissues and organs such as bone marrow, fat from liposuction, regions of the nose, and even from cadavers up to 20 hours after death.

Myth 2. The Catholic Church is against stem cell research.

There are four categories of stem cells: embryonic stem cells, embryonic germ cells, umbilical cord stem cells, and adult stem cells. Given that germ cells can come from miscarriages that involve no deliberate interruption of pregnancy, the church really opposes the use of only one of these four categories, i.e., embryonic stem cells. In other words, the Catholic Church approves three of the four possible types of stem cell research.

Myth 9. **Because frozen embryos may one day end up being discarded by somebody, that makes it morally allowable, even laudable, to violate and destroy those embryos.

ncbcenter.org/10Myths.pdf**

The moral analysis of what we may permissibly do with an embryo doesn’t depend on its otherwise “going to waste,” nor on the incidental fact that those embryos are “trapped” in liquid nitrogen. If we imagine a coal mine with miners who are permanently trapped inside through no fault of their own, with the certainty that they are all going to die, that would not make it okay to send a remote control robotic device to harvest organs from those miners and cause their demise.

Fr. Tad also says this regarding he distinction between therapeutic and reproductive cloning:

There’s only cloning, and the distinction comes later when you ask what will be done with the cloned human being after it’s manufactured. Will you implant it into a uterus, or will you contravene it to gain access to its harvestable cells and tissues? These considerations begin to reveal the inconsistency of preparing legislation which would penalize the one form of cloning without penalizing the other.

…therapeutic cloning, from the moral-ethical point of view, is actually a greater evil than reproductive cloning.

Why? Ask yourself the following question: which is really worse from a moral standpoint: to create a new child who is an identical twin to somebody else via cloning, allowing him to come to term and to be born (and thus to live); OR to create that same identical twin, for the conscious and pre-meditated purpose of contravening his life in order to harvest his tissues? Which is in fact the worst of the two? Therapeutic cloning manipulates human beings and violates their dignity by creating them for the express purpose of destroying them by the extraction of their stem cells. We consciously choose in this way to exploit powerless human beings as factories for their bodily tissues. That is why therapeutic cloning is invariably and without exception an immoral kind of research activity, which should not be permitted in a civilized society. We stand in need of insight and wisdom to be able to grasp this simple truth: that therapeutic cloning represents an immediate evil, a threat which is even more dangerous than the very serious threat which may soon arise from reproductive cloning.
macathconf.org/cloning_testimony_of_fr_pacholcz.htm

So if the ammendment does indeed allow for research on “embryonic” stem cells regardless of whether they are trapped in liquid nitrogen, then it is not ethical and you should let the good bishop know this as well.

 

[Pray4me2]

Thanks for the info. I’m aware of the different types of stem cell research. My question is not about the science but about the morality of supporting a measure that bans human cloning (therapuetic and reproductive) but affirms the right to conduct all other stem cell research (ethical adult & unethical embryonic).

Passage of the amendment would outlaw cloning (currently legal and protected by the Missouri constitution) but would would also re-affirm the right to conduct embryonic and adult stem cell research (currently legal in 50 states and constitutionally protected in Missouri).

If the proposed amendment is not passed cloning, embryonic and adult stem cell research all remain legal and constitutionally protected.

So, yes the proposed amendment does allow for embryonic stem cell research. A ban has not been sought simply because the voter support does not exist. The bishop is well aware of the ethics of research on frozen embryos.

 

[sprout]

yes the proposed amendment does allow for embryonic stem cell research. A ban has not been sought simply because the voter support does not exist. The bishop is well aware of the ethics of research on frozen embryos.

Wow! the good Bishop is aware the proposed ammendment would allow embryonic stem cell research and he supports it?

I suggest you call Father Tad Pacholczyk directly and discuss your concerns with him. You can find his # here at the bottom of the page. Fr. Tad is the Director of Education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), Fr. Tad is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts. As an undergraduate he earned degrees in philosophy, biochemistry, molecular cell biology, and chemistry, and did laboratory research on hormonal regulation of the immune response. He later earned a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Yale University, where he focused on cloning genes for neurotransmitter transporters which are expressed in the brain. He also worked for several years as a molecular biologist at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School.

Fr. Tad studied for 5 years in Rome where he did advanced work in dogmatic human embryo. He has testified before members of the Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Virginia and North Carolina State Legislatures during deliberations over stem cell research and cloning. He has given presentations and participated in roundtables on contemporary bioethics throughout the U.S., Canada, and in Europe. He has done numerous media commentaries, including appearances on CNN International, ABC World News Tonight, and E.W.T.N Global Network, and National Public Radio.

There’s a roundtable coming up in Michigan on December 7th

NCBC also has a “Bishop’s Workshop” ncbcenter.org/bishops_workshop.asp

 

[Pray4me2]

Sprout,

Thanks for your replies. I’ve e-mailed Fr. Tad, great idea. Since you seem to be the only one interested in discussing this, maybe you could give me a little more detail on your line of reasoning. Perhaps an analogy would help.

Suppose a ballot initiative were put forth banning partial birth abortion but in that same initiative it was stated that all other currently legal abortion methods shall remain legal. Would you vote for the initiative? Campaign for or against the initiative? Remember if passed a current evil ( partial birth abortion ) goes from legal to illegal and other evils (all other abortion practices )remain legal. If not passed all evils (partial birth and non-partial birth abortion) remain legal.

Additionally consider that votes against the initiative will likely be viewed as support for partial birth abortion.

I believe this is analogous to the situation I’ve describe with cloning and embryonic stem cell research. Both are evil but one can be made illegal while at the same time affirming another evil (but not changing its legal status).

I’d love to hear more about how you think this through and if you still haven’t read the proposed amendment, do me a favor and read it ( it is very brief ).

 

[sprout]

I gather the initiative seeks only to limit ESCR to IVF embryos and adult stem cell research and will disallow the creation of embryos (outside of IVF) for the purpose of research.

What’s to stop clinics from intentionally creating embryos specifically for research using IVF? I’ve heard it takes around 200 embryos for one treatment of one disease. That alot of embryos, that’s alot of eggs, where are they gonna get all those eggs?

From the poor and the young. I remember years ago hearing my daughter and her friends talking about “selling” their eggs for $3000. To a young woman making minimum wage that’s alot of money. Yet the process of egg donation (taking ovarian hyper-stimulation drugs) is very risky for young women and there have even been cases of death. Even Feminist groups are critical: Prominent American feminists have highlighted the dangerous effects of multiple egg extraction from women to provide eggs in large numbers to laboratories for cloning experiments.

The only analogy with abortion I can think of at the moment is making an exception for rape or incest.

Personally I think it’s illogical to make such an exception, since you either know the unborn child is a child and should be protected at all costs or you think it’s not a child and deserves no protection.

But, anyway, back to the analogy.

If I could make headway into protecting the lives of all those children who were not conceived through rape or incest by voting for an initiative that would outlaw abortion except in those cases then I think that it would be worth voting for the “lesser of two evils”.

Another analogy is voting for Parental Consent laws. There’s always a workaround in those initiatives that allows a judge to override parental notification or parental consent. It seems like a waste of money and time to pursue parental notification, but I have to assume that it will cut down on the number of abortions of young women who are seeking an abortion because they’re just too afraid to tell their parents.

But abortion has been with us a very long time and there have been so many state constitutions that protect abortion that sometimes compromises have to be considered.

ESCR is relatively new so whatever legislation is passed can be setting precedent, not only for your state, but for other states to follow suit. Given that, I think it would be an even greater dilemna to vote on something that allows experimentation on frozen embryos as other state’s may decide to follow and only perpetuate the myth that it’s OK since “they’re gonna die anyway”. In a sense, it’s giving scandal.

Not only that but it could have grave consequences, what of all those women who will be selling their eggs? What of those women who die from taking the ovarian hyper-stimulation drugs?

I think it would be better to continue to educate the good citizens of Missouri about the dangers of ESCR.

I found this quote on the Missouri Roundtable for Life website:

…In Missouri we lost the Independent vote 55 -45%. They could have swung the election for us in the state, had we appealed to them more. The irony is, because of the way the amendment was crafted, it lent itself to just such an attack - it was so vulnerable to legal / political arguments, it should/could have been defeated without any life arguments at all. We in the pro-life community were too predictable in our reaction to the amendment, and we fought the fight they predicted we would. Perhaps Kansas can learn from our mistakes.

~Fr Albert Bruecken O.S.B., a Benedictine Monk at Conception Abbey, Conception Missouri

In other words, our fatal error in this campaign was an excessive focus on a religious base when secular voters would have been ‘reachable’ (pardon the use of plaintiff lawyer terminology) had we made a concerted multimedia appeal to them.moroundtable.com/2006/11/19/an-a2-post-mortem/

Heck, you’ve even got the “feminists” on your side and only 5% points to convince. I’d like them odds.

 

[Pray4me2]

One of the few “good points” of amendment 2 was it did disallow the creation of non-cloned embryos for the expressed purpose of ESCR ( ESCR was limited to leftover IVF embryos).

I agree 100% with all the problems you raise with ESRC. The problems of egg donation and the explotation of young, poor women was a part of the talks I gave in opposition to amendment 2 and part of the campaign against the amendment.

Obviously neither I nor the Catholic Church wrote this proposed amendment and if we had, we would have addressed the use of IVF embryos, for their destruction is as much of a problem as destroying cloned embryos. As a Catholic I am simply stuck with whether or not to support the inititiative as it is written.

I, too, worry about precedent setting. Even though ESCR is legal would passage of the amendment make it more difficult to undo it in the future?

Your point and quote at the end are interesting. It apppears to me that the amendment is a product of the kind of thinking proposed by the monk you quoted. It seems to me that this proposed amendment was crafted with the idea of “lets not be idealistic and create an amendment that protects all embryonic life, rather go for what is politically possible. We know that Missourians oppose human cloning, oppose tax dollars for cloning and are in favor of cures, so let’s ban cloning and tax money for cloning and point out that we are not changing other existing stem cell research laws”. By foregoing the “life arguments” (IVF embryos have the same moral status as cloned embryos) we’ve gambled on short term gains (cloning banned) at the expense of potential long term losses (precedent for the continued legality of IVF ESCR).

 

[sprout]

It apppears to me that the amendment is a product of the kind of thinking proposed by the monk you quoted. It seems to me that this proposed amendment was crafted with the idea of “lets not be idealistic and create an amendment that protects all embryonic life, rather go for what is politically possible. We know that Missourians oppose human cloning, oppose tax dollars for cloning and are in favor of cures, so let’s ban cloning and tax money for cloning and point out that we are not changing other existing stem cell research laws”. By foregoing the “life arguments” (IVF embryos have the same moral status as cloned embryos) we’ve gambled on short term gains (cloning banned) at the expense of potential long term losses (precedent for the continued legality of IVF ESCR).

The writers of the initiative may actually be making the same mistake made earlier by assuming beforehand they have to make concessions in order to get the votes rather than making a non-religious, secular, argument to the voters. They already have a group of Missourians who could be convinced the use of IVF embryos is immoral for secular reasons. Take the Feminists for example. This is one of the areas in which Fr. Tad is so skilled making secular arguments.

re: IVF embryos - does the existing ammendment or the proposed initiative restrict research to existing cell lines such as Pres. Bush did? restrict it to X number of IVF embryos based on the number of IVF embryos calculated to already exist in Missouri? does it have any kind of ethics requirements for obtaining these IVF embryos? If not, then what is to keep the scientific community from establishing a relationship with IVF clinics who pay young women and the poor for their eggs? Or from importing IVF fertilized eggs from 3rd world countries?

to quote the same article I did previously:

The beginning of the proposal lists 45 parts of the state constitution that may be changed, repealed, or modified by this amendment. Few if any of these changes are included in the ballot language. Among the changes listed in the amendment is Section 14 of Article I (Open Courts):

Section 14. That the courts of justice shall be open to every person, and certain remedy afforded for every injury to person, property or character, and that right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay. Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II § 10.

If a woman donates her eggs to an ESCR clinic and has a stroke, she will be unable to bring suit. Because of section 7 of this amendment, we citizens would no longer have a right to an Open Court in regard to ESCR. Nor can the legislature pass laws to change the situation. In fact, any local bowling alley, diner, or grocery store will be more regulated than companies that conduct ESCR. ~Abbot Gregory J. Polan, O.S.B
moroundtable.com/2006/11/19/an-a2-post-mortem/

There are a plethora of secular arguments to be made, that could persuade voters who are not moved by “religious” ethics.

Here’s a resource to articles written by Fr. Tad:

Making Sense of Bioethics

“Imposing Our Beliefs” on Others

 

[melensdad]

Just curious, but if something is already LEGAL and you vote to make PART of it ILLEGAL then are you not voting to curtail that which is immoral? Perhaps we would all prefer to simply ban a practice rather than to curtail it, but why not accept a small victory in a long war that we need to continue to fight?

I look at this a potential to INCRAMENTALLY achieve part of the desired end. Win a small victory today, regroup and start the battle again tomorrow and win aother small victory. Eventually we will win the war, even if it is just one small battle at a time. Each of those little battles adds up to a whole lot of good when they are added together.

The other option is to object to a portion of the legislation and therefore not support any of it. In that case we actually may continue to lose ground in the war. Personally I think we need to pick away at the bad things, even if in small bits.

 

[Pray4me2]

“So if the ammendment does indeed allow for research on “embryonic” stem cells regardless of whether they are trapped in liquid nitrogen, then it is not ethical”

Just curious, but if something is already LEGAL and you vote to make PART of it ILLEGAL then are you not voting to curtail that which is immoral? Perhaps we would all prefer to simply ban a practice rather than to curtail it, why not accept a small victory in a long war that we need to continue to fight?

The 2 quotes above pretty well sum up my dilemma. Support the proposed amendment and ban an imoral act that actually as of yet is not scientifically possible and at the same time perhaps strengthen the legal precedent for a different immoral act which is currently performed and is legal . Alternatively, not supporting the proposed amendment would allow for cloning but not strengthen the future legal arguments. I am leaning toward supporting the amendment. Thanks for the replies.