The Stem Cell Debate

By Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza

Published on The Catholic Herald, July 25, 2001.

Reprinted on July 25, 2001 with permission from Bishop Joseph Fiorenza’s office.

As the country awaits President Bush's decision on the use of federal funds for research on embryonic stem cells, the debate rages on in Congress and the media.  I think it should be made very clear that those who oppose research on human embryos are not opposed to research that will help cure the terrible diseases that now afflict many people.  In fact, they encourage the use of federal funds for research but on adult stem cells.  It is the only research on stem cells that is morally acceptable.

It is very difficult for many people to understand why research on embryonic stem cells is morally objectionable when there is the possibility of curing Parkinson's and other debilitating diseases.  Even when they admit that the human embryo has life (even when frozen), they would allow the death of the embryo to obtain stem cells for research that has only the possibility of finding a cure.  They often acknowledge the traditional moral principle that the end never justifies the means, but they allow exceptions in certain cases when there is the possibility that a great good can be obtained.

This manner of thinking does not acknowledge that there are absolute moral norms which do not admit exceptions.  Rather it espouses a type of situational ethics that is at variance with the Church's teaching on moral absolutes.  What are some moral absolutes?  The basic absolute norm is that one may never do evil that good can come from it.  The more specific absolute moral norms forbid lying that destroys a person's good reputation, killing an innocent person, fornication and adultery.  Such acts are always immoral and no circumstance or situation will ever make them moral or ethical.  They admit to no exceptions.  There are never any situations when it would be moral to perform an abortion, or to falsely damage a person's reputation, or to commit adultery or fornication.

Situation ethics, however, has been embraced by many people, including some ethicists and theologians.  They would hold that abortion, adultery and fornication are immoral most of the time, but there are situations in which they could be justified.  It is generally wrong, they believe, to do research on human embryos, except if there is a good reason for the research, such as the possibility of finding a cure for perplexing diseases.  It seems to me that this is the reasoning of the strong Pro-life people who favor research on human embryos.  It is faulty and dangerous reasoning and the Church maintains that research on living human embryos can not be justified for any reason.

It is very important for the well-being of society that there are absolute moral norms which admit to no exceptions even for very laudable reasons.  Once exceptions are made, it will only lead to other exceptions for equally good reasons, and before long the moral and ethical fabric of society begins to unravel.  To a great extent that is the situation today.  Public morality acknowledges fewer and fewer absolute standards because we began to accept or at least tolerate lower moral standards than previous generations.  Once we accept research on human embryos, it will lead to the demand for cloning so that genetically compatible stem cells can be obtained in order to cure disease.  The most worthy dream of conquering disease has, unfortunately, led some scientists to object to any restrictions on their desire to achieve their goal.  We were horrified at the Nazi research on prisoners, or the early research in this country on African-Americans.  We should also be horrified at research on human embryos because it is not essentially different from research that shocked civilized people not too long ago.

Is research necessary on embryonic stem cells to find a cure for Parkinson's, diabetes and Lou Gehrig's disease?  Although the media gives little attention to it, the scientific world is divided on the question.  There are reputable research scientists who believe that adult stem cells are more effective than embryonic stem cells for research.  In fact, and this should be kept in mind, to date research has obtained good results only from adult stem cells.  The private research on embryonic stem cells has not produced any positive results.  Those who favor embryonic stem cell research only have a hope, perhaps a good hope that it will lead to a cure.  They have no certainty.

Whether or not it is certain that research on a living human embryo will lead to a cure of dreaded diseases, it is immoral and unethical to destroy the nascent human life, no matter how small it may be.  It is good to remember that each one of us, at one time, began life as a tiny cluster of cells, almost invisible to the human eye.  If a research scientist had removed a stem cell from our tiny beginning, our human life would have ended at that moment.

Those who favor research on frozen embryos opine that they would probably be discarded anyway.  Well, they should not be discarded.  The frozen embryos are the world's loneliest orphans.  God gave human life to these embryos and in the name of scientific research they were frozen.  Research on frozen embryos is no less immoral than research on unfrozen embryos.

In the classic novel, The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky raised a question similar to the one we are debating now in this country: whether it would be right to build a world without human suffering if "it was essential and inevitable to torture to death one tiny creature" such as an innocent child?  Each one of us must answer this question as we decide about stem cell research.  The moral and ethical answer would never allow the killing of human life even to eliminate all human suffering.

Soon the President will make his decision.  Let us pray that he will be faithful to his campaign promise to ban federal money from embryonic stem cell research.  This is the only possible moral and ethical decision.  It is probably the best political decision, too.

Diocese of Galveston-Houston

Information on the Stem Cell Debate

Address of Pope John Paul II to the President of the United States - July 23, 2001

 “Hearing on Stem Cell Research”  July 18, 2001 - ProLife Activities US Conference of Catholic Bishops