Rite and Reason: The Government view that Ireland will not stand in the way of destructive embryonic stem-cell research happening elsewhere is at odds with our Constitution, writes Father Kevin Doran
As a gardener of very limited ability, I have always been fascinated by the reproduction of geraniums. You can cut one stem off an adult plant, shove it into potting compound, add a drop of water, and it grows. The theory behind the use of human stem-cells is much the same.
Stem-cells are highly versatile cells in the human organism capable both of reproducing themselves, and of developing to produce the more specialised cells out of which human tissue and organs are formed.
At the present state of scientific research, this offers the possibility of the injecting of stem-cells to repair damaged tissue, muscle, nerves, or even bone. Among the conditions which are potentially treatable are heart disease, Alzheimer's, and stroke. For many years leukaemia has been successfully treated by the replacement of bone-marrow, an excellent source of stem-cells.
Embryonic stem-cells are harvested from human embryos, while all other stem-cells are referred to as adult stem-cells, and these can be harvested from a variety of sources including bone marrow, cord blood, placenta, and liver.
Some researchers argue that, because embryonic stem-cells are more versatile, they have greater potential for medical use than adult stem-cells which, although they are still quite versatile have already begun to develop.
But in recent years researchers have come to realise that there are far more sources of adult stem-cells in the human organism than had previously been recognised. As a result, the potential for obtaining an adult stem-cell suited to a particular need is far greater than had previously been thought.
Another issue which must be faced is that the extreme versatility of embryonic stem-cells also makes them less predictable. They can not always be relied upon to develop as intended, and there is the risk of bone developing where muscle is required or vice versa. The careful selection of adult stem-cells, which are further along the developmental chain, would seem to reduce that risk.
Adult stem-cells can be harvested without causing harm or loss of life. Provided proper consent is obtained, and the stem-cells are used for the purpose of developing treatments, there is no ethical problem about the use of adult stem-cells and funding should be directed to this area of research.
But the harvesting of stem-cells from embryos always results in the destruction of the embryo. If it were only a haphazard cluster of cells, that would be no problem. But an embryo, although it is small and can't smile yet, is a distinct individual human being in the process of rapid organised development.
Modern research in genetics and in reproductive technology actually helps to demonstrate that this is true. We now know that a human embryo can live and develop apart from its mother. We know too that a human embryo is genetically distinct from its parents, and that all the genetic information that is required for its development is already present at the single-cell stage.
Researchers argue that it is acceptable to destroy embryos as long as it is done in a good cause, and as long as the parents give consent. But the deliberate destruction of innocent human life is fundamentally wrong, and even the prospect of wonderful new cures does nothing to change that.
It has been suggested that there would be no ethical problem if the research were limited to so-called "spare" embryos, the by-product of IVF, which are being kept in frozen storage. It is said that these embryos are going to be disposed of anyway, once they reach the end of their "shelf-life", and we might as well "give some meaning" to their lives.
To be used as raw material for the pharmaceutical industry is not what gives meaning to the existence of a human embryo.
That meaning is inherent in the act of creation, and we choose either to respect it or not to respect it. All human beings eventually die, and embryos are no different. The moral evil is associated not with the fact that embryos die, but with the fact that somebody decides to kill them.
There is an assumption that with IVF, there will always have to be surplus embryos. But that is not the case. IVF can be carried out without generating surplus embryos. With sufficient goodwill to do this, the disposal of "surplus embryos" or their use for research would not arise.
On October 29th a delegation from the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference met the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The bishops expressed their grave concern at the inclusion of a proposal in the Sixth Framework Programme for Research that the EU should jointly fund destructive research involving human embryos.
The EU Council of Ministers will vote on the Sixth Framework Programme at the end of this month and the bishops asked the Taoiseach to ensure that the Irish delegation votes against the funding of research on embryos and on embryonic stem-cells.
It speaks volumes that this issue is being discussed at the EU under the headings of "trade" and "competitiveness". Whether by accident or by design, this carries the implication that human embryos are commodities or consumer goods. Two years ago, Ireland could have joined Italy, Germany and Austria to ensure that embryonic stem-cell research was excluded from this programme, but no effort was made to do so.
The Government now seems to take the view that, as long as destructive embryonic research is not happening here, then Ireland won't stand in the way of its happening elsewhere in Europe. This attitude is totally at odds with the spirit of the Irish Constitution which specifically recognises the right to life of the unborn.
It actually leaves the door open for the Irish pharmaceutical industry to benefit from the destruction of embryos, as long as that destruction takes place elsewhere.
Successive Governments have told us that we have a significant voice in Europe. The time has now come for this Government to take a principled stand and to give moral leadership. The decision to be taken on this issue will, in a very real sense, be more fundamental than the Nice Treaty in determining the character and ethos of the Europe in which we will live.
The immediate political responsibility for the vote at the Council of Ministers rests with the Tánaiste, Mary Harney. But the Tánaiste is only one member of a Government which operates by the principle of collective responsibility. Her vote at the Council of Ministers must, therefore, be subject to the approval of the Cabinet, each member of which shares with her both the moral and the political responsibility for whatever position will be taken by the Irish delegation.
Father Kevin Doran is secretary of the Irish Bishops' Committee for Bioethics