Catholic Bishops Condemn Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Affirm Morally Acceptable Alternatives -- Part One of Two

Editor's note. Please read Part Two, which provides additional useful background.

My rule of thumb is if somebody describes something succinctly and correctly, go with it. So, let me quote the lead paragraphs from an AP story that discussed a recent meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which took place in Orlando, Florida.

"The nation's Roman Catholic bishops issued a document Friday warning against what they consider the moral dangers of embryonic stem cell research, saying it treats human beings as commodities and reduces procreation to a manufacturing process," writes Rachel Zoll.

"With elections looming this fall, the bishops said they are not asking Catholics or the public to choose between science and religion. Instead, they are urging people to examine how society should conduct medical research." Nice. Opposing embryonic stem cell is not anti-science but (to quote bioethicist Wesley Smith) "pro-human."

Their nine-page, 2,000-word-long statement, titled "On Embryonic Stem Cell Research," represented the USCCB's first formal statement addressing embryonic stem cell research and the ethical controversies surrounding it in detail. Brilliantly written, the document carefully delineates why embryonic stem cell research is inherently immoral, explores some of the many morally acceptable alternatives, and offers many examples that buttress the idea of a "slippery slope."

For me the best part of a terrific analysis is how deftly the Bishops disposed of the various rationales for harvesting human embryos for their stem cells. Some are age-old--variations of the "ends justify the means" argument--a "utilitarian ethic" that has had an "especially disastrous consequence when used to justify lethal experiments on fellow human beings in the name of progress," according to the Bishops. "No commitment to a hoped-for 'greater good' can erase or diminish the wrong of directly taking innocent human lives here and now."

What I had missed previously and which the statement brought to my attention is that when you undermine respect for human life by turning human embryos into commodities, you "can only endanger the vulnerable patients that stem cell research offers to help."

By this the Bishops mean that "The same ethic that justified taking some lives to help the patient with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease today can be used to sacrifice that very patient tomorrow, if his or her survival is viewed as disadvantaging other human beings considered more deserving or productive."

Another dimension of the slippery slope--that the harvesting will never stop at "spare embryos" but has already led to some researchers claiming the right to clone human embryos in order to destroy them--is explained in refreshing clarity.

Just one other quick thought. There is "a better way." The Bishops do not go into great detail, but they note there is a plethora of ethically acceptable alternatives "loosely called 'adult stem cells.'"

The Bishops conclude with a helpful reminder that the debate over stem cell research "does not force us to choose between science and ethics, much less between science and religion." Instead it presents a choice--a choice "as to how our society will pursue scientific and medical progress."

That choice is between ignoring ethical norms and exploiting the most vulnerable among us and "pursu[ing] progress in ethically responsible ways that respect the dignity of each human being."

Part Two