Recently in Bioethics (RT) Category

The writings of Michael Kinsley, former editor of Slate and The New Republic, are often intelligent, insightful, and invariably, incorrect. His latest article for Slate, Science Fiction: What pro-lifers are missing in the stem-cell debate, is a prime example. Kinsley suffers from Parkinson's and has an intimate stake in the potential cures provided by stem cell research. He admits that he is “not an objective analyst” and firmly believes that, “No other potential therapy—including adult stem cells—is nearly as promising for my ailment and others.”

Considering that adult stem cells (ASCs) have already been used to treat Parkinson’s (as well as 70 other conditions) while embryonic stem cells (ESCs) can't be used to treat any disease, it becomes clear that Kinsley is not only not objective, he is not committed to learning the truth. But the blame lies less with the suffering than with those who blatantly overhype the potential of ESCs for cures.

A handful of researchers, abetted by the media, have consistently misrepresented the “promise” of ESC for their own personal gain. In a talk at Cambridge University in England entitled "Hype, Hope and Hair-raising: How the British press saw it," former Science Editor Tim Radford of the UK's The Guardian acknowledged that he and his fellow science journalists hype stem cell research to sell more newspapers. Those who play on the emotion of people like Kinsley have much to gain (e.g., research grants, magazine sales) and very little to lose (i.e., the last scraps of their integrity).

But Kinsley makes another more damning point: that pro-lifers tend to have an inconsistent view on embryo destruction. When embryos are destroyed within the womb (i.e., abortion) we find it intolerable. But when it occurs outside the womb (i.e., in an IVF clinic) we hardly raise a fuss. As Kinsley notes:

In a recent press conference President Bush was asked a question that was intended to clarify his position on the moral status of embryos:

If I understood you correctly, the embryos put together for in vitro fertilization do contain life. And if that's the case, do you believe that those people who create those embryos for in vitro fertilization have an obligation to ensure that they are brought to term if they are, in fact, not needed by the original --

To which the President interjected…

No, the issue that involves the federal government is whether or not we use taxpayers' money that would end up destroying that life. That's the issue at hand.

While I have the utmost respect for Mr. Bush and appreciate the way in which he has defended the sanctity of life, he is wrong on this point: our obligation to embryonic human life is the issue at hand.

No doubt it is easier to oppose those who would destroy embryos for speculative scientific research than it is to criticize citizens who create “extra” embryos out of the desire to have a child. But while the motives may differ, the embryo has the same moral status and deserves to be protected from harm. The pain of infertility does not provide an exemption to our obligation.

[Note: This originally appeared on this blog as a post and has been revamped in order to be used for CBHD’s monthly newsletter. To complete the loop I’m posting the recycled version as a new blog entry.]

“Is it a boy or a girl?"

Whether after a sonogram or a new birth, the first question we have about a child is almost always about sexual identity. For millennia parents have anxiously awaited the answer to a question that underscores the mystery and uniqueness of being created male and female. But what happens when the outcome can be decided before the child even enters the mother’s womb?

Although rarely discussed, reproductive technologies have made it possible for parents to have complete control over the sex of their child. The most common method requires only a prenatal diagnosis (either through a sonogram or amniocentesis) followed by abortion of fetuses having the unwanted sex. A more advanced means involves a preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) followed by selective implantation based on the desired sex. An even more rare, and less certain technique, entails the pre-fertilization separation of X- and Y-bearing sperm followed by selective in vitro transfer. The first two techniques select post-conception, while the last seeks to determine sex before human life begins.