Study+guide+9

Q3. When does human life begin - list different views and discuss the impact of these views on moral decisions about the ethics of research into embryonic and adult stem cells.

DMc: Initial response - not official response Dr Lush - life begins when all the children leave home!!!

DMc: According to the research some believe human life to begin at fertilization as a unique entity has been created at that time.There is a view that life begins at gastrulation, about 16 days after fertilization, on the basis that until that time 2 or more entities may arise from the one fertilization. There is a view that cerebral neurological function and the formation of synapses (about 25 weeks) is the determining factor as 'humanness" is acquired at that time. There is a suggestion that life begins at implantation - when an embryo created outside the uterus is implanted. On the non-science side Plato considered that the human sould did not enter the body until birth, and the Pythagoreans considered the soul was created at conception. There are of course religious views, the Catholics believe that it occurs at conception and Rabbinical writings suggest, apparently 13 days.

The ethics into embryonic stem cell research took a major step forward in 2006 when a team of scientists reported in Nature that they were able to create embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo. There have been subsequent breakthoughs in 2007 where ordinary skin tissue can be transformed back to look like embryonic stem cells.

However to the ethical issues of using embryos, I personally don't have a problem with using non-viable embryonic sources for the farming of ESCs. To save a viable human life or make it more comfortable is worth cells from a non-viable source.

In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti", Amen

Denis

I find it very difficult to think about when human life begins in a scientific manner, for me it has emotional aspects. Even prior to fertilisation, I see oocytes as having the potential for human life, without these there would be no life (metabolic view as described in the study notes). I have an issue with using embryos for stem cell harvesting and in particular wonder if in countries with less ethical controls and where money is harder to come by, whether women would be tempted to gain financially by becoming embryo producers. The use of somatic tissue to produce embryonic-like stem cells is a huge breakthrough and with fewer ethical issues to consider, I think that research in this area will go ahead in leaps and bounds towards clinical application. Karen

Hi Karen

I can understand your concern but as scientists, just I might add as in all professions, we face ethical and moral issues with which we must deal. In the end societal attitudes will eventually dictate the laws by which these things happen. This is a slow process however but does eventually work - here of course I am referring to open democratic societies. We all need to express our personal views to our political leaders. I agree with your comments on somatic tissue and indeed hope that the next time this course is run that the lecture materials are brought up to date - this is a fast moving field. As for unfertilized eggs, well I have a different view. However coming from a marine biology background somewhere in my readings was a comment that "sperm is cheap" and there is much more reproductive effort required by females of species to produce eggs - I can certainly from a biological point of view understand your argument.

Denis

I recall hearing a discussion between two philosphers a long time ago. I think they were the man who wrote 'Romulus my father' - at latrobe, name won't come to me, and possibly Peter Singer (formerly Monash). The Latrobe man said morals had nothing to do with taking a reasoned position - things were just right or wrong (abortion I think was 'wrong'), whereas the other said it depended on the situation. I lean towards the second in most matters. But I have a feeling that some people would say the second position is about ethics, not morals. Well, just thought I'd throw this in because it looks like Karen is arguing from a more absolute (moral) viewpoint and Denis from a more relative (ethical) one. The on-campus students apparently had a lecture this semester in which ethics were distinguised from morals. I must listen to it. We'll try to incorporate it for 2010 - but you don't need to worry this year. Mary

I hadn't thought too much about the difference between morals and ethics and the lecture would be interesting to listen to. I've just googled these terms and was amazed with the number of websites that discuss them. I'm not sure Mary that I quite understand what you mean by 'depending on the situation'. Does it mean that morals come from an emotional standpoint (ie abortion is wrong no matter what the circumstance) but if the situation was considered (ie abortion is right if the pregnancy was the result of rape) then it's an ethical standpoint? Karen

Yes, that is what I was suggesting but I don't know if i am right. I think ethics is a position adopted based on evidence, morals relates to something less definable and more absolute. The evidence one needs is presumably be weighted costs and benefits (I don't mean $) to all parties and if the cost was greater than the benefit then it would be ethical to abort. So I would differ slightly from what Denis wrote below. But I am talking through my hat here - not as an informed source. I still haven't listened to that lecture! Mary

Morality and ethics is a good debate. Ethics to more is a more personal and preofessional matter, whereas morality tends to be more a community based standard which we adopt to conform with the society in which we live. Ethically I might feel that feel that it would be Ok to have say 3 wives, but the morality (and law) of Christian society generally does not accept that. (Don't know about 3 mother-in-laes though). The development of the atomic bomb and the Robert Oppenheimer story is a classic to me. There was no community standard and therefore no guiding morality for behaviour and each scientist in the program was left to his own conscience and ethics. They new the power of an atomic reaction/explosion and the purpose of the creation of the bomb, but America was in a war that it did not start and could be ended by the use of such a weapon. Ethical? Moral?

In terms of abortion I'm very much pro-life in all but a few circumstances such as rape victims, unviable foetus, mother's health issues. I certainly don't believe that it should be used as a means of contraception.

Denis