It's been a hot topic for the past few elections cycles: should human embryos be destroyed in order to harvest stem cells from them for therapeutic medical applications? This year, it remains a campaign issue and the stances of the two major candidates are predictable: Barack Obama supports the use of fetal stem cells, and files the issue under "Women Issues"; John McCain opposes the use of fetal stem cells, and files the issue under "Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life". Unsurprisingly enough, one's answer to this ethical question usually lines up with one's opinion on abortion, and the categorization of the question by the two candidates makes an implicit link between embryonic stem cell use and abortion. (Otherwise, Sen. Obama would have filed it under "Healthcare" or "Disabilities" or even "Technology".)
However, I suggest that this is no longer a viable issue. Why? Because stem cells are available through many other readily available -- and ethically innocuous -- sources. Stem cells have been recovered or derived from teeth, amniotic fluid, menstrual flow, the lining of blood vessels, umbilical cord blood, and skin. And, just this morning, I saw that a new source has been added: "Human Testicles Yield Stem Cells".
If this is the case, then why is it an issue? If ethically neutral options are available, why even have the argument about the ethically fraught option? To illustrate the absurdity here, imagine a group of people stranded on a desert island full of fruit trees and slow, edible animals. Now imagine a leader of the group calling an assembly to consider the question of who will be killed and eaten first. To me, the embryonic stem cell issue is like that: an argument about a difficult ethical choice, which, while possibly justifiable in extremity, is completely unnecessary in the current situation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
My vote is that we not eat me first.
Post a Comment