Let's Roll the Dice and Hope We Do Not Crap Out

It is understood that Embryonic Stem Cell Research (henceforth ESCR) is a topic of great concern to many. In fact, it is safe to say that the vast majority of people in the world are currently affected, or will someday be affected, by the results of the debate. Therefore, it is easily deduced that this topic is of the greatest importance. In this paper, I will discuss several of the moral concerns surrounding ESCR, specifically five ethical questions that seem to be at the center of the debate. I will answer these questions, arguing in favor of ESCR, from a Utilitarian point of view, and I will consider counter-arguments from Kantian and Divine Command Theory proponents.

Five questions that are at the core of the debate are:

1. What, in principle, is ethically at issue with destructive embryo research?

2. What is important when it comes to judging the value of the potential consequences of destructive embryo research?

3. In what does the value of the human embryo consist?

4. Does the means by which an embryo expiresÐ'--whether it is destroyed or merely succumbsÐ'--make a moral difference?

5. Is there anything morally worse about using embryos created for research purposes compared to using existing excess or surplus ART (assisted reproductive treatment) embryos?

Given that ESCR requires the destruction of human embryos, it brings two rudimentary moral principles into conflict with each other: one principle that requires the prevention or alleviation of human suffering, and the other requires that we respect the value of human life. While it has not yet been proven that ESCR will bring about revolutionary advances in the prevention, detection, and treatment of as-of-yet incurable medical conditions, it seems highly likely that it will. Assuming these advances do indeed come forth, it is not difficult to appreciate that ESCR easily satisfies the first principle.

However, a strong argument can be made that it violates the second principle since it results in the termination of embryos that form the starting point of human life. Therefore, tension arises when we must decide which principle holds precedence. Should we adhere to the first principle, and roll the dice in hopes that ESCR will fulfill its potential and bring us these incredible medical advances, in the process sacrificing what could potentially be human lives? Or do we hold to the second principle, giving precedence to potential human life over current and future (definite) human life?

I would argue that the benefits of trying to find cures to diseases such as cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer's, and being able to eliminate the shortage of organs that are available for transplantation far outweigh the drawbacks to such research. Almost 6,000 people die each year in America while waiting for an organ transplant , 4.5 million Americans currently suffer from Alzheimer's disease , and approximately 30,000 Americans suffer from Cystic Fibrosis (an additional 10 million Americans are unknowing, symptom-less carriers of the defective gene that causes CF). If ESCR can indeed provide cures to these problems, it seems to make sense to me that the number of people, extrapolated through time, benefiting from this would far outnumber the quantity of stem cells that would have to be destroyed in the process.

As we have said, these benefits of ESCR are still only likely, and not certain, so serious consideration must be given to the possibility that these medical breakthroughs will never be realized. In that event, I do not in any way deny the tragedy that will have befallen the destroyed embryos. Ending a possible human life in a vain attempt to benefit others' lives is not an endeavor to be taken lightly. Still, after careful consideration, it seems clear to me that that if we do not at least give our full effort in this direction, we leave the great unknown still out there. It seems that if we try and fail, the greater good would be served by leaving no stone unturned.

Determining whether embryos hold the same value as persons, potential persons, divine creations, the beginnings of human life (with intrinsic value), or only organic material (with no more moral standing than other body parts) is crucial to the debate on what level of respect we must treat them. Many followers of the three great monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) would argue that embryos are divine creations, made in the image of God. Therefore, these Divine Command Theorists would argue, embryos must be afforded the same level of respect as any other being. They would argue that using an early embryo for research is no different than killing a human being for research, and do not feel that it can be justified, whatever the potential