Right or Wrong? Embryonic stem cells

Posted: 11/04/05

RIGHT OR WRONG?
Embryonic stem cells

I read where a Christian went to China to get treatment for Lou Gehrig's disease. Problem is, the treatment uses stem cells from aborted fetuses. According to the Chinese government policy of one child per family, these babies were going to be aborted anyway. Is this terminally ill Christian wrong for getting help in this way?

When I asked several people in my congregation to define a stem cell, they had difficulty doing so. If you're a little vague about stem cells, you're in good company.

There are different types of stem cells.

Adult stem cells are extracted from bone marrow, skin, blood, umbilical cord and other tissues. They have more limited applications than stem cells from embryos, although some recent research indicates there may be wider applications for these stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are unspecialized cells extracted from 4- to 5-day-old embryos that have the capacity to develop into almost any type of tissue in the body. A stem cell line, or colony, is derived from a single embryo. The cells can replicate themselves for months or years in labs, and, once established, can be used in research.

Because the Bush administration has limited government funding for development of new embryonic stem cell lines, some patients have gone overseas to receive treatments utilizing stem cells. They have done this because some scientists contend the existing embryonic stem cell lines in the United States are contaminated.

The ethical issue for Christians concerns the use of embryos for medical research. One concern is that individuals will become pregnant in order to sell their embryos. Another is that scientists will use embryos in unethical ways, such as trying to create a cloned human baby.

Further, some Christians fear the use of such embryos will encourage more abortions. To address some of these concerns, the National Academies' National Research Council and Institute of Medicine recently has published guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research to guide scientists in their use and procurement of stem cells. Also, there have been proposals that Congress enact new laws that would place limits on the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes.

In the specific case spelled out in the question, the stem cells do come from aborted fetuses, but they were not fetuses created to be used in medical experiments. To me, there is a difference. Doubtless, some Christians would be troubled by any experimentation on an aborted fetus and therefore could not accept such treatments. However, many Christians would not be troubled by such experimentation. They would justify such usage by the positive results that might ensue. From my perspective, there may be medical dangers involved in such a decision, but there are no ethical dangers for the individual if the person believes using an aborted fetus in this way is ethical or, at the very least, the lesser of two evils.

For society, however, there is another moral issue underlying this question: Is it right for the wealthy to be able to buy good medical care, which is not available to others? A trip of this magnitude and the proposed treatments would be very expensive. Only the wealthy would be able to afford such a trip and such treatments. Many would argue most medical care in the world is available to the wealthy first and then to others. This may be true, but is this the kind of societal value Christians should support?

It seems to me, Christians should support equal access to medical care, and good medical care should be available to everyone. We may not be able to provide such care at this time, but shouldn't that be our goal?

Philip Wise, pastor

Second Baptist Church

Lubbock

Right or Wrong? is sponsored by the T.B. Maston Chair of Christian Ethics at Hardin-Simmons University's Logsdon School of Theology. Send your questions about how to apply your faith to btillman@hsutx.edu.