Would you use the cure? (does the end justify the means question)

[LemonAndLime]

Some time in the future, experimenting on live embryos/stem cell research/IVF is outlawed. Your job on the day after that it was made illegal is to go to the labs where experiments on stem cells and human embryos were carried out, and confisgate the embryos themselves from the scientists and to also seize the results of the experiments.

You go into one of the labs and you meet a scientist called Bob, who has been working on some stem cells taken from embryos and has found the cure for cancer. The embryos died as a result of the experiment, and Bob doesn’t think theres anything wrong with that because afterall - he has a cure for cancer!

Would you use the cure, or destroy it?

 

[Mumbles140]

Stem cell research isn’t bad in and of itself - it is embryonic stem cell research that results in the destruction of life. Scientists have found that skin cells, due to their regenerative nature, can be a good source. Also, I believe both the umbilical cord and some other post-natal fluids contain these cells, it’s just that it takes longer for scientists to collect them.

I’m not sure whether it is okay to use the knowledge. The only way I can think of it is in comparison to a legal sense. Would it be considered inevitable discovery if they had been using non-embryonic stem cells all along? Or is it considered the fruit of the tree, and we must exclude it from our memories.

Truth be told, I’m not sure what the Church teaches in this matter. Clearly, it seems blatantly wrong to profit from the destruction of human life. So let’s break it down into the three basic parts of an act and determine whether it can be deemed morally good:

–Intent: The intention is to cure cancer. Obviously, this is a very good intention.
–Means: Using stem cells to develop a cure. Also good, except when those stem cells come from embryos fertilized solely to be killed and harvested. Using embryonic stem cells is morally wrong and impermissible.
–Result: A cure for cancer has been achieved. Obviously this is a good result.

And although the intent and result are good, the ends do not justify the means. We may never know how many embryos were destroyed in the process of this, but in all the years of cancer research from however many years ago ESCR began until the date of this hypothetical situation in the future, I’d estimate it is a fairly large number, but even one human life destroyed in the name of ‘scientific discovery’ is too much for my liking.

 

[kimmielittle]

 

[PatriceA]

Some time in the future, experimenting on live embryos/stem cell research/IVF is outlawed. Your job on the day after that it was made illegal is to go to the labs where experiments on stem cells and human embryos were carried out, and confisgate the embryos themselves from the scientists and to also seize the results of the experiments.

You go into one of the labs and you meet a scientist called Bob, who has been working on some stem cells taken from embryos and has found the cure for cancer. The embryos died as a result of the experiment, and Bob doesn’t think theres anything wrong with that because afterall - he has a cure for cancer!

Would you use the cure, or destroy it?

Outlawed by whom? The government? Because all that you mentioned is already condemned by the Catholic Church.

I’m no scientist by any means, but I would think that any cure that was found using embryos in stem cell research can also be applied to adult stem research. Adult stem research is allowed by the CC.

 

[freethinker83]

I am not allowed to vote (probably because I am a new member). I would definitely use the cure. This would be one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time and would have an immeasurable benefit to people everywhere.

 

[freethinker83]

The embryos died as a result of the experiment, and Bob doesn’t think theres anything wrong with that because afterall - he has a cure for cancer!

I think it should also be pointed out that Bob probably doesn’t see an embryo as a human being the same way most Catholics seem to.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Outlawed by whom? The government? Because all that you mentioned is already condemned by the Catholic Church.

I’m no scientist by any means, but I would think that any cure that was found using embryos in stem cell research can also be applied to adult stem research. Adult stem research is allowed by the CC.

I knew this would happen. The whole point of a hypothetical situation asking a moral/philosophical question, is that you debate the moral/philosophical side and don’t split hairs over the situational aspect. By all means mention it, but if people just post to criticise the scenario, you’re missing the point.

In this example the cure is discovered by using embryo stem cells, as stated in the scenario. This situation came up in conversation in another thread, so I thought I’d ask it on its own seperate thread.

 

[PatriceA]

I knew this would happen. The whole point of a hypothetical situation asking a moral/philosophical question, is that you debate the moral/philosophical side and don’t split hairs over the situational aspect. By all means mention it, but if people just post to criticise the scenario, you’re missing the point.

In this example the cure is discovered by using embryo stem cells, as stated in the scenario. This situation came up in conversation in another thread, so I thought I’d ask it on its own seperate thread.

I am addressing it from a moral stand point. I am Catholic, I address any hypothetical situation from my moral and Catholic point of view. You can not ask people’s opinion and ask them to check their very fiber of moral being at the door when providing an answer. This is a Catholic forum, you are going to get answers that have a Catholic point of view, hypothetical questions or not.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I am addressing it from a moral stand point. I am Catholic, I address any hypothetical situation from my moral and Catholic point of view. You can not ask people’s opinion and ask them to check their very fiber of moral being at the door when providing an answer. This is a Catholic forum, you are going to get answers that have a Catholic point of view, hypothetical questions or not.

Huh? Excuse me? What now?

Thats very nice PatriceA, but I’m not arguing against that. I am arguing against you not going along with the spirit of this thread. “Outlawed by who? The government? It’s already outlawed by the Church!” - Yes, we know that. But in my scenario, the government who allows embryonic research, has now made it illegal and the following moral dilemma is evident - which do we pick?

I have no idea why you have criticised me, because quite frankly you have utterly confused me and I think you have the wrong end of the stick, not me. I really am baffled by your response. I am very away I will get a Catholic point of view, thats what I’m asking for. Whats the problem? No one else has reacted like this.

 

[PattiDay]

Research on embryonic stems cells, although not illegal, is immoral, and the thought that research may continue to go on until ‘some time in the future’ is abhorant. The end, however desirous a cure for disease may be, does not justify the means, which is the destruction of innocent human life. If one believes this, then there is no answer to your question.

 

[PatriceA]

Huh? Excuse me? What now?

Thats very nice PatriceA, but I’m not arguing against that. I am arguing against you not going along with the spirit of this thread. “Outlawed by who? The government? It’s already outlawed by the Church!” - Yes, we know that. But in my scenario, the government who allows embryonic research, has now made it illegal and the following moral dilemma is evident - which do we pick?

I have no idea why you have criticised me, because quite frankly you have utterly confused me and I think you have the wrong end of the stick, not me. I really am baffled by your response. I am very away I will get a Catholic point of view, thats what I’m asking for. Whats the problem? No one else has reacted like this.

You didn’t say the government outlawed the research. From your original wording, it could be the Church or the government that now made it illegal. That’s why I asked and then you proceeded to dismiss my original answer. I am not criticizing you at all.

 

[edwest2]

First, everyone reading this began life as a human embryo. This is a scientific fact.

Embryonic stem cells are foreign genetic material and are rejected by another body.

Embryonic stem cells have caused cancers called teratomas.

Peace,
Ed

 

[freethinker83]

Research on embryonic stems cells, although not illegal, is immoral, and the thought that research may continue to go on until ‘some time in the future’ is abhorant. The end, however desirous a cure for disease may be, does not justify the means, which is the destruction of innocent human life. If one believes this, then there is no answer to your question.

So are you saying you would reject what was learned from the hypothetical research and throw the cure for cancer away?

 

[freethinker83]

First, everyone reading this began life as a human embryo. This is a scientific fact.

Embryonic stem cells are foreign genetic material and are rejected by another body.

Embryonic stem cells have caused cancers called teratomas.

Peace,
Ed

What does embryonic stem cells causing cancer have to do with anything?

“First, everyone reading this began life as a human embryo. This is a scientific fact.”

Okay, Abraham Lincoln, Hitler, Jesus, George Bush, and Tom Cruise also all began life as embryos. What is the point?

 

[LemonAndLime]

You didn’t say the government outlawed the research. From your original wording, it could be the Church or the government that now made it illegal. That’s why I asked and then you proceeded to dismiss my original answer. I am not criticizing you at all.

I thought the term “illegal” was sufficient to imply it was a governmental decision, because - A) Everyone knows the Church does not allow embryonic research and B) People rarely use the term “illegal” to describe something the Church has forbidden. In fact, this is the first time I’ve heard someone use it as such. I apologise if I have offended you, it was misunderstanding on both sides I think.

 

[timeandeternity]

I liked Mumbles140’s answer to your question. To flesh it out a little:
If this newly discovered cure could be manufactured using stem cells not taken from embryos, there would be no ethical problem with using the cure; it would not be necessary to kill another embryo to obtain the same result that Bob got with an embryo. However, if it was determined that Bob’s cure could only be manufactured using embryonic stem cells, it would absolutely be forbidden to use this cure, since it would entail the unethical (and, in this hypothetical case, illegal) destruction of more human embryos.
So I can’t really vote on this, since my answer is “It depends!”

 

[timeandeternity]

Never mind, I guess my answer would be the middle one–which, by the way, I don’t think is really a compromise.

 

[freethinker83]

Never mind, I guess my answer would be the middle one–which, by the way, I don’t think is really a compromise.

Wouldn’t using what was learned for the benefit of others be the same as using what was learned from Holocaust experiments to benefit other people in the future? Wouldn’t the only moral thing be to throw out everything learned in this way?

What do you think?

 

[LemonAndLime]

I liked Mumbles140’s answer to your question. To flesh it out a little:
If this newly discovered cure could be manufactured using stem cells not taken from embryos, there would be no ethical problem with using the cure; it would not be necessary to kill another embryo to obtain the same result that Bob got with an embryo. However, if it was determined that Bob’s cure could only be manufactured using embryonic stem cells, it would absolutely be forbidden to use this cure, since it would entail the unethical (and, in this hypothetical case, illegal) destruction of more human embryos.
So I can’t really vote on this, since my answer is “It depends!”

But what if he gained this knowledge through embryonic stem cell research? Would that mean that even if he applied the knowledge to “ethical” stem cells, it would be immoral because the knowledge he had was gained through immoral means?

Also - its called a “compromise” because while Bob won’t be using embryos to re-make the cure, he will be using the knowledge instead. Kinda like keeping the same instruction manual but using a different component, its a halfway point. I didn’t just want to have the options to be either a Yes/No and maybe didn’t sound right.