Philosophy and Embryos

Another weekly reflection from my Philosophy class.

Ethical Issues and Embryo research

One of the central issues for our reading this week is the appropriate status given to embryos in a research context. This issue is tied to questions of when human life begins, but with a permutation. Many (most) of the embryos that might be used for research have not and will implanted into a woman, and, therefore, have no chance of developing.

For some individuals, the fact that these embryos will never develop might remove any ethical issue from the discussion. As their circumstances make these embryos, at least in practice, non-viable, there is no dilemma in whether it is suitable to use them for research. For other people however, the fact that these embryos exist, and are potentially viable under any circumstances, means that they deserve to be treated with care, and are possibly worthy of protection.

This seems to boil the issue of what is an embryo down to fundamental concerns. If you think an embryo, whatever it's stage, deserves the protection granted to persons, embryos simply shouldn't be used for research. If you believe that embryos only deserve protection when they reach a certain stage, or don't deserve protection at all, embryonic research seems acceptable and worthwhile.

Mary B. Mahowald and Anthony P. Mahowald offer an interesting “bypass,” as they call it, to this dilemma. They grant embryos a certain status, acknowledging that they should be treated with respect. At the same time, they accept that the vast majority, if not all, of these embryos will die, even if no active steps are taken end their lives. It is therefore acceptable, they argue, to respectfully ALLOW the embryos to die, and then use their cells for research. By not having the researchers actively kill the embryos, the article hopes to bypass the question of whether embryonic research is ethical. Mahowald and Mahowald compare this to organ donation; we don't kill people (even people that are dying) to take their organs for others, but once people are dead we can, with permission, use their organs to save other lives. Mahowald and Mahowald even offer the possibility that researchers would treat the embryos involved with special care, recognizing their unique status.

This argument offers a powerful compromise, but I suspect that, like many compromises, it would leave neither side satisfied. Those against embryonic research could argue that, having granted embryos special status proves that they deserve protection. Those for embryonic research could be uncomfortable with the idea of granting embryos special status of any kind, especially by institutionalizing special rituals and procedures that distinguish them from other laboratory specimens.

Like many of the issues relating to when human personhood begins, I suspect this issue will never be truly resolved. There will always be two sides that have radically different views who are unlikely to come to aggreement.

However, I think that this may be an issue where the vast majority of people can accept a working compromise. I suspect that for most people, experimenting 14 day old embryos with no chance of ever being implanted, removes the embryos far enough from personhood that they can accept the practice because of the possible good that might come out of it. It is the sort of rationalization that seems likely to be acceptable to most people.

The interesting thing about that, however, is that such acceptance is probably not based on much actual reasoning or careful thought. I tend to think that most compromises like this are chosen because they are the path of least resistance, rather than the outcome of careful analysis. This is a sobering thought considering that we are discussing this in a philosophy class!

In practice, I find the Mahowald article convincing (and would not require the extra procedures for respect), and I suspect most people would be comfortable with the general compromise, but I also tend to think that people are primed to accept compromises that resolve an issue, whether or not they have actually carefully rationalized it. While there are people with uncompromising views of any issue, most of us seem to accept compromise as a practical neccesity.