Treatments Derived from Embryonic Stem Cells

[Cattitude]

On another forum, the topic came up about denying medical treatment to one’s children because one’s religious leaders deemed the treatment to be wrong. The topic was brought up because of the recent death of John Travolta’s son and the allegation that he died due to lack of proper medical treatment for seizures. (I do not want to get into a debate about the beliefs of scientology in this thread.)

Most of those in the thread stated that God gave us reason to use to develop modern treatments, so they should be used. I agreed except in the case of treatments that are derived by illicit means, such as through embryonic stem cell research. Other posters basically said that treatments should be sought by any means necessary and that anyone who would let their child suffer rather than using such a treatment is “taking their religion too seriously” (atheists). This is coming from someone who I have dealt with before who thinks that what religion you are just means what church you go to on Sunday, and has no bearing on the rest of your life decisions.

What say you, Catholics? What happens if/when embryonic stem cells are the only known way to cure/treat some diseases? Do we embrace these treatment(s) for our children and cave in? What will the Church say about this? Or is this a non-issue because whatever embryonic stem cells can do, adult stem cells can do also? (I know that adult stem cells are already being used to treat many diseases.)

 

[edwest2]

Do some research. Adult stem cells are being used successfully as treatments. Your body will not reject your own cells. I have read statements from those representing scientists who see potential in using human embryonic stem cells and I understand their thinking. But, an embryologist can show you, without too much difficulty, that a human embryo is, in fact, a unique human being. There is no need to add the religious dimension.

However, if that is true, and it is true, then everyone, religious or not, should object to the killing of human beings for medical experiments no matter what the goal is. Those who work in science who contend that this is a purely religious objection are in error. It is not.

See The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ron_Conte]

The recent Instruction from the CDF sheds some light on this question:

Therefore, it needs to be stated that there is a duty to refuse to use such “biological material” even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or the abortion, or when there was no prior agreement with the centers in which the artificial fertilization took place. This duty springs from the necessity to remove oneself, within the area of one’s own research, from a gravely unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the value of human life. Therefore, the above-mentioned criterion of independence is necessary, but may be ethically insufficient.

Of course, within this general picture there exist differing degrees of responsibility. Grave reasons may be morally proportionate to justify the use of such “biological material”. **Thus, for example, danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, **while keeping in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available. Moreover, in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision.
DIGNITAS PERSONAE
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

It is sometimes moral to use a treatment, developed using a morally illicit means, if there is a grave reason and if one’s cooperation with the immoral acts is mediate material cooperation, not formal or immediate cooperation.
ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/key_principles/cooperation.asp

 

[Cattitude]

Thanks, Ron, that’s what I was looking for.

So, one could use such a treatment for a grave illness if no other choices existed. I don’t know if I would do that for myself, but when thinking about my children, that’s a tough one.

Hopefully, adult stem cells will show so much promise and embryonic will become so problematic that it won’t even be a question in the future.