Why does the principle of Double Effect not apply to embryonic stem cell research?

[JKing]

I s’pose I should put my disclaimers up front. I’m Catholic. I’m 100% pro life. I’m opposed to embryonic stem cell research. I know that recent break-throughs have made the “need” to destroy embryos obsolete. I’m also aware that adult stem cells are better and a much more fruitful path of research. But I ask because you all are way smarter than me and I want to know where my thinking is going wrong here.

I’ve read all the threads and think I have a pretty good handle on the principle of double effect as applied to ectopic pregnancies, basically that you are doing a good thing (or morally neutral thing) that causes two results–one is desired and one isn’t. Therefore, removing the ectopic embryo to save the mother is good even though you know there is no way the baby will survive. If you do nothing, both will die.

Now, why couldn’t the same logic be used by someone who wants to use the thousands of frozen embryos to try to find cures for various diseases like parkinson’s or spinal injuries or alzheimer’s? Your desire is to extract the stem cells and the unintended consequence is the death of the embryo. Both the frozen embryo and the patient will die if you do nothing. If we do the research, perhaps at some future date, many patients will be saved.

I hope I’ve presented this well enough that I can get some good feedback. Please ignore the fact that this question is basically moot now because they can make stem cells from any cell they want now and so embryos are not required. (Thank God for that, but let’s ignore that for the purpose of this question.) Is the difference in the uncertainty of the good outcome of the research? Or perhaps is the difference in the more direct termination of the embryo?

Jeff

 

[bugz2007]

Because removing the stem cells is not a morally good or morally neutral action. Removing the stem cells is inherently destructive to the embryo. Under no circumstances could it be anything but destructive. It’s the same reason why we can’t simply abort an ectopic pregnancy. If I recall correctly, the organ in which the infant is growing must be removed, since removal of an organ is morally neutral, while the removal of a nonviable child from the body would directly bring about its death. We can’t directly cause death or destruction of human life.

 

[LumenGent]

Basically, you can’t kill someone to save another. You can’t kill the embryo just so you can treat or cure another person. People focus so much on the sick person in need of cure and neglect and/or reject the existence of Human life in the embryo. The act is gravely immoral in and of itself even if it were to save 1000 lives per embryo.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The three fonts of morality:

1. intention - the intention to cure a disease by medical research is good
2. the moral object - the direct killing of the innocent human person (even at a very early stage of life) makes the act intrinsically evil and always immoral. The death of the embryo is not a consequence of a good act, but is inherent to the chosen act itself.
3. the good consequences of doing medical research is outweighed by the bad consequences that follow from treating human persons as if they were merely material for use in research.

The principle of double effect only justifies an act when the moral object, toward which the act itself is inherently ordered, is good. The killing of the embryo is not an effect or consequence, but is the act being considered.

 

[StCsDavid]

If one believes that life begins at conception, then at what point does one say it is okay to use a living human being as a commodity for research? Do we say that if a human being is only the size of a single cell it’s okay to sacrifice the person, but if it has become many cells then it’s wrong? What if we could cure all cancer with the liver from a 3-month old embryo? Would we say it was okay then to sacrifice that individual? What if we discovered that the pancreas of an 80 year-old contained the key to curing muscular dystrophy? Would we then start killing old folks to save the lives of others?

At conception one gains the full dignity of being human. Science monkeyed around and created these thousands of frozen embryos, and science has the moral obligation to find a way to treat these souls with the dignity they deserve. Using them as a commodity for research is despicable.