Posted on 05/21/2008 2:29:28 PM PDT by Amelia
This week, a complex and controversial piece of legislation began to make its way through the British parliament. One of the provisions of the bill permits the creation of “savior siblings”...Another is a reduction of the legal time-limit on abortion, which up to now has been 24 weeks.
A third provision — and the most controversial of all — permits the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos, or “cybrids,” for medical research...It is this third provision that I want to focus on.
[snip]
The hybrids under discussion in the British bill are totally different. The idea is to take an animal egg — say a cow egg — and remove its nucleus. This would remove most of the cow’s DNA from the egg. Human DNA would then be introduced, and the embryo would be allowed to begin to grow....
(Excerpt) Read more at judson.blogs.nytimes.com ...
I'm wondering if those on this board think this is a morally acceptable alternative to embryonic stem-cell research, or not, and why.
Island of Dr. Moreau ping.
Dr. Moreau was unavailable for comment.
Only difference is, they aren’t supposed to let these get past the embryo stage...for now, anyway.
The reason this is morally repugnant, is because humans are not merely another kind of animal: humans are (or have the innate capacity to be, under normal circumstances) rational: this gives us the capacity to make responsible use of every other "thing" on our planet and beyond.
The usual ethical rule is "Use things; love people." The usual ethical violation is when we love things, and use people.
So it's clear that when you engineer a life form whose identity is dubious, you also are in a serious ethical quandary. You don't know if you're entitled to "use" this new entity, or whether, on the other hand, it has human or human-like rights which you must recognize, which would preclude using it/him/her as a non-consenting experimental subject.
A similar dilemma occurred during the "Age of Discovery" (16th Century) when European explorers were first encountering beings whose appearance and behavior raised the question whether they were indeed the same human species. The question arose as to whether, for instance, the African rainforest people such as Pygmies in what is now northern Zaire, who wore no or very little clothing, possessed no or little property, had no or little social organization, were indeed human or whether they were some mid-point between human and ape.
The larger question was whether the indigenous people of Africa and the Americas possessed natural human rights, including the right to personal liberty, the right to govern themselves, etc. Scholars at the University of Salamanca had to try to determine a fully coherent ethical framework for human rights per se.
Francisco de Vitoria is widely regarded as the founder of the Salamanca School, particularly its fusion of "natural law" philosophy with Catholic doctrine. His 1532 De Indis lecture was an eloquent defense of Indian rights and against enslavement, which led them to be eventually placed under the protection of Spanish crown.
We now face, in a way, similar challenges. For example, Stanford scientist Irving Weissman injected mice with human brain cells, seeking new treatments for brain disorders such as Alzheimers. In 2005, Weissman said he'd like to transplant human neural cells into mice to such an extent that the mice lose all of their own neurons, upping the ante from less than 1 percent of human genetic material in the brain to virtually 100 percent. How can anyone say for sure what the moral status of that mouse would be?
I myself am convinced that such there should be a moratorium on such experiments until we can spell out much more clearly what constitutes human identity and human dignity.
We need a new Vitoria today.
Annalex, I’d like to see you jump in here and help us hash this out. And, as well, invite some others who have good thoughts on Human Dignity and Natural Law.
The U.K. is a bit ahead of us in many ways, so far as discussing and regulating the new reproductive technologies goes - for instance, they are actually discussing this, and some in the U.S. have apparently done it already.
I believe I'm correct in saying that in the U.K., embryos can't be frozen longer than a certain period of time, they aren't supposed to create more than can be implanted at one time, and they aren't allowed to implant enough embryos into a woman so that possibly "litters" of children could be created, which endangers the health of both the mother and the babies.
I like the idea of creating stem cells without destroying embryos, but the article mentions that much of the mitochondrial DNA remaining in these cells would be of animal origin, which raises questions of what the organism would be if it were allowed to develop, and also of what effects such stem cells might have if they were used to treat diseases.
I don’t see what is there to hash out. Britain is rapidly becoming an ethical wasteland.
I guess Jessica Alba’s “Dark Angel” character Max was supposed to be a human/feline Cybrid, engineered to look all-human.
I agree with you, but still, the "reasons why" are not apparent to a lot of people in general, or even to a lot of FReepers. I would guess the majority just say "EEew, icky" "I dunno, this kinda creeps me out" and let it go at that. That's why I think it worthwhile to explain in detail.
Incidentally, I just read an article about a 'Ethics, Biotechnology, and the Future of Human Nature' course at Harvard, where this exchange took place involving the excellent Richard Doerflinger (this is the Harvard Gazette's take):
"[Professor] Melton asked Doerflinger if a day-old embryo and a 6-year-old boy are moral equivalents. Doerflinger said that they were. Then why, Melton asked, does society tolerate filling up freezers with embryos but not 6-year-olds?
"The question brought applause from the students and discomfort for Doerflinger. "
Yeesh! As if what a corrupt society "tolerates" is a slam-dunk, determinative philosphical or ethical argument in its favor. One could as well say, "Well, why did German society allow the extermination of Jews, but not of Aryans?"
But the argumentum ad Hitlerum (or "reductio ad Nazium") is, of course, not to be allowed...
They also don't allow a bunch of extra embryos to be created and then cryostored forever...you're only supposed to create the number you'll use, and if they aren't used, they're to be destroyed. I know that some find destruction of the embryos to be repulsive, but I think having them stored for years and years and never used might be equally so....
I meant no comparisons. The redeeming quality of America is its religiosity. But you are exactly right, that US abortion laws are absolutely barbaric, while the British legislation shows some sign of residual humaneness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.