Letter to Congress
Fr. Joseph C. Howard, Jr., M.Div., has sent the following letter to
members of the U.S. House and Senate:
As research regarding human embryonic stem cell continues, the American Bioethics
Advisory Commission is compelled to speak out to the United States Congress on the
scientific and ethical realities which are present as well as the ethical responsibilities of
the United States government regulating such research. Recently, the American
Cancer Society (ACS) has withdrawn from a coalition that is lobbying Congress to
support such research. In fact, the ACS has asked the Patients' Coalition for Urgent
Research to remove its name from the list of 31 research-and patient-advocacy groups
that make up the coalition as reported in the August 1999 journal Nature. Why is
there such an interest in stem cell research? While there are many types of stem cells,
they, in principle, all have the ability to divide and self-renew and to commit to a more
specialized function. That stem cells have the capability of self-renewal means that
they can continually reproduce themselves. This property of stem cells is one major
reason for the intense scientific interest of using them for experimental or therapeutic
procedures. For example, if a person were suffering from diabetes, the manipulation
of stem cells into pancreatic cells for transplantation might offer a cure for the
disorder. While there are proposed treatments and possible cures for various disorders
from using human embryonic stem cells, there are also grave ethical considerations we
seek to delineate regarding the innate dignity of each and every human person.
To understand the issues of human embryonic stem cell research, it is critical to have
an accurate scientific understanding of the beginning of human life. On January 26,
1999, Dr. Harold Varmus (Director, National Institutes of Health) testified before the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies. In addressing the Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee, Dr. Varmus stated, "Totipotent stem cells—such as the product of
fertilization of an ovum and its progeny—are stem cells that have total potency, which
means that they have the ability to form an entire mature organism, e.g., a human
being, although only if placed in a woman's uterus." As members of the American
Bioethics Advisory Commission, we believe it to be absolutely essential that the
beginning of human life be represented scientifically as accurately as possible using the
most contemporary biotechnology. We recognize that the product of the fertilization
of an ovum by a spermatozoon—a zygote—marks the beginning of a new human
being at an early stage of embryonic development. As the zygote develops, nothing
new is learned genetically but, progressively, many things are forgotten. These
findings prove differentiation and that from the very beginning there exists a human
embryo. As growth and cell division of the zygote continues, the human embryonic
life does contain stem cells which are either totipotent or pluripotent; however, each
new human being created, even at an early stage of embryonic development, can never
be reduced to "a cluster of totipotent or pluripotent stem cells." This correct scientific
understanding of human embryology and the beginning of human life recognizes that
the fertilized egg is a living entity, a human being, a human individual and a person,
all one and inseparable. After the initial contact of sperm and egg, there is no
subsequent moment or stage which is held in arbitration or abeyance by the mother, or
the embryo or fetus. Nor is a second contribution, or signal or trigger, needed from
the male in order to continue and complete full development to birth. Human
development is a continuum in which so-called stages overlap and blend into one
another. Thus, the beginning of a new life is exacted by the beginning of fertilization,
the reproductive event which is the essence of life.
At this time, there are three proposed methods for obtaining human embryonic stem
cells which warrant careful ethical analysis. First, there is the use of human embryos
resulting from In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF). It is critical to recognize that although IVF
is a violation of the Laws of Nature and, hence, is unethical, what results in a glass
dish from IVF are human embryos who are human beings whose dignity and right to
life must be respected from the first moment of their existence. The Inner Cell Mass is
removed from these human embryos at the blastocyst stage of development resulting
in the death of that human life each and every time. The destruction of human
embryos resulting in death is accurately reflected by the scientific phrase, "Human
Embryonic Vivisection (HEV)." The destruction of one human life in order to attempt
to save another human life is always gravely unethical. Secondly, a procedure called
somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), which was used to create the sheep Dolly,
involves the fusion of an egg whose nucleus has been removed with a human cell that
is not a sperm or egg cell. It is reasonable to believe that what results from this
procedure is a living human embryo. From the living human embryo, the Inner Cell
Mass will be removed in order to isolate stem cells with the result being the death of
that human being—Human Embryonic Vivisection (HEV). How can any civilized
society promote the creation of human embryos only to use them as objects or
commodities which can be killed in order that other human beings who are suffering
from disease might live? We are aware that this procedure—SCNT—offers the real
possibility of eliminating immunological rejection and, hence, the need for
immunosuppressive drugs, since most of the genetic information contained within
these cells would be essentially genetically identical to the person from whom they
were derived. We nonetheless reject this procedure on the grounds that it is never licit
to destroy one life to save another life, regardless of the amount of "good" which
results. Thirdly, stem cells have been isolated from fetal tissue obtained from induced
abortions. Cells were taken from the region of the fetus which was destined to
develop into the testes and ovaries. Even though informed consent was obtained from
the donors after they had independently made the decision to undergo induced
abortion, it is never morally licit to utilize materials with the knowledge that they were
obtained wrongfully. Those who utilize such materials with that knowledge are
cooperating in actions which are gravely unethical. Actions which are legal are not
necessarily moral, as in this particular instance. It is obvious that health care
professionals must be on stand-by and ready to obtain such cells/tissues immediately
following the procedure of induced abortion. Such cooperation in illicit actions is
unethical and should never be encouraged or funded by the federal government.
In closing, the American Bioethics Advisory Commission deeply shares the concerns
of others in our country to alleviate human disease and suffering. We must, however,
insist that the means which are employed show absolute and unconditional respect for
all human life from conception until natural death. Through countless observations,
experimentally, as well as deductive reasoning, only one valid scientific conclusion can
be drawn: The result of fertilization is the beginning of a new human life. We
advocate as a valid and ethical solution the use of stem cells obtained from placental
cord blood. These stem cells can differentiate into the full spectrum of blood cells. In
fact, it was recently shown that placental blood from unrelated donors is a useful
source of stem cells for bone marrow transplantation. (The New England Journal of
Medicine, Vol. 339, No. 2, Nov. 1998, pp. 1565-1577) These stem cells can probably
differentiate into muscle, bone and connective tissue cells as well. Also, research
conducted at Harvard in early 1999 demonstrated that it was possible to remove
urinary bladder cells from beagle dogs via biopsy, grow them in the laboratory, and
seed them onto polymers, forming new urinary bladders for transplantation. The
urinary bladders were normal and functional 11 months post-surgery. (Nature
Biotechnology, Vol. 17, Feb. 1999, pp. 149-155) We encourage this type of research
as it could be applied to human beings.
We strongly urge the United States Congress to support legislation which bans all
types of research on all human embryos, even if they are slated to be destroyed. Laws
should be expanded to deny any type of funding for the use of fetal tissues obtained
from elective abortions. We must work together to ensure that the innate dignity and
sanctity of all human life from conception until natural death is always protected.
Sincerely yours,
Fr. Joseph C. Howard, Jr., M.Div.
Executive Director
American Bioethics Advisory Commission
|
