The Politics of Embryonic Stem-Cell Research
Third Quarter 2002
Around the world a political struggle is unfolding over the "spare" embryos left over after in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. Recently, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, with support of state premiers, endorsed a plan to legalize the use of the "spare" embryos in scientific experiments. The legislation would ban all forms of human cloning but allow for the scientific use of left-over embryos. In his televised announcement Mr. Howard explained that he could see no difference between an embryo dying naturally and one being destroyed during research. Why not proceed with research if it helps humanity?
The first thing we should consider here are the IVF participants themselves. The political debate regularly ignores them. They are subjects in applied medical research and conceiving an IVF embryo is part of this scientific process. One of the wonders of the doctor-patient relationship is the contribution the doctor makes to the psycho-physiological life of marriage. There would be no scientific research in this field if married couples did not turn to the medical profession to seek help in becoming pregnant by means of IVF. To discuss, let alone to pass legislation about, embryos in the abstract, as if they just happened to be there, misses the point entirely. The fact is that these embryos would not exist apart from the parental accountability that brought them into existence. IVF is a service oriented toward establishing a parenting bond.
The arguments being made by those who want embryonic stem-cell research are all about the "downstream" medical and commercial benefits. The state premiers even voiced worries that the future of science in Australia is itself under threat if this legislation is not passed. Such panic does not constitute an argument and merely diverts attention from the moral and human-rights questions that IVF raises about life, marriage, the family, and social justice.
The more important question which any legislation must address is the legal situation confronted by those who have been in IVF programs and are still accountable for what they do with the frozen, unused embryos. That legal situation involves real couples with real moral responsibilities and emotional burdens. It is astounding that politicians who claim to be pro-family on other matters can ignore the indirect emotional and moral harm that their cost-benefit rhetoric might do to the actual people involved. Have they forgotten the grief that occurs after a miscarriage? Are they ignoring the fact that an IVF mother can also suffer in this way? All the great promises of the scientific community mean very little when one is grieving the loss of a miscarriage.
Following a Dehumanizing Path
The stem-cell debate raises a real political challenge. It highlights the need for full-bodied ethical discussion, and this must include a new understanding of "abortion" as well as a legal redefinition of the "right to life."
First, let's recognize that IVF embryos, which some describe as potential human beings, are also potentially aborted human life. If the embryo had not been frozen, it would have aborted soon after conception. Its death has been staved off by the IVF freezing process. This process was developed to serve those seeking a family. The advancement of IVF science has occurred for this reason and legislation about IVF embryos must ensure that married couples who desire to become parents are truly served through IVF treatment. Consequently, IVF needs a cultural context that is protective of the participants, ensuring that they are not subjected to extravagant ideologies about science saving "humanity" and not subjected to harassment by cost-benefit analysts trawling for "communal resources" to exploit for scientific or other purposes. The discussion should deepen respect for those who have not been able to conceive and bear children and for all the children and parents God has given us.
Second, medical scientists who seek to use the "spare" embryos have not adequately faced the fact that the IVF embryos are not theirs. Nor have they explained why experimentation should not include other or all embryos that are aborted in medical settings. What gives IVF embryos their special status? Here again we see the consequence of trying to make scientific "progress" the basis for ongoing medical service. Human responsibility is thereby inverted. Will not legislation allowing scientific research on "spare" embryos mean that IVF in the future will assume that would-be parents exist, in part, to serve medical science by providing "spares"? This way of thinking has the effect of turning the purpose of medical science upside down.
The discussion in this article focuses on embryonic cell research, but other issues of "body politics" —medical abortion and euthanasia—are implicated in the proposed legislative changes. There is also a big question about how to restore the public trust of medical professionals, whose aim must be the protection and enhancement of life. In embryonic stem-cell research we are being invited to follow a path paved by a multi-faceted dehumanization of medical science. Cost-benefit appeals by politicians to the proposed benefits for "mankind" will only confirm rather than allay our fears in this regard.
—Dr. Wearne, the Public Justice Report's editorial adviser in Australia, is a former academic now living in Point Lonsdale, near Melbourne. His major work is in the history of sociological theory.
