|
|
| FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE
A discussion of the federal ban on human embryo research March 14, 1997 |
|---|
Return Human Embryo forum introduction
Questions asked
in this forum:
Does this research place the role of God in question? Doesn't the benefits of embryo research outweigh any harm to the embryos? Does embryos have "human rights"? Should their be exceptions to the Congressional ban on human embryo research? Why did Congress overrule an NIH panel when they banned human embryo research? Additional Comments from Viewers.
NewsHour Links
March 10, 1997: Dr. Neal First of the University of Wisconsin and Dr. John Fletcher of the University of Virginia answer your questions about cloning.
February 24, 1997:
A background report on the cloning of sheep in Scotland.
February 24, 1997:
A technical discussion on the science of genetic engineering.
February 24, 1997:
A discussion on the ethics of genetic engineering and cloning mammals.
April 3, 1996:
Fred De Sam Lazaro reports on scientific advances in genetic research and the ethical questions they raise.
OUTSIDE LINKS
The Genetics and Public Issues Program at The National Center for Genome Resources (NCGR) discusses cloning.
Discussion of Ethics and Social Issues in Gene Research at the Human Genome Project.
Browse the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics home page.
Matthew Cammack of Kingwood, TX, asks: If a genetic disorder such as Tay Sachs disease could be virtually eliminated by screening embryos for the disease, wouldn't the benefit to the human race out- weigh the loss of embryos doomed to die of an incurable disease?
Dr. Mark Hughes responds:
Your question refers to the process of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) which is a new medical treatment that allows a couple at high genetic risk the opportunity to start their pregnancy knowing that their baby will not have a lethal inherited disease. The diagnosis is made before a pregnancy actually begins. Usually, the couple knows beforehand about their genetic risk because they already have lost a baby due to a genetic mutation which they carry in their eggs and/or sperm. Since they understand the disease better than many health care professionals (after all, they have witnessed it in their own family), most of them are unwilling to assume these high risks and they decide not to "try again." These couples are excellent candidates for adoption, which is the first option they should consider. Another alternative is sperm or egg donation by an anonymous donor who has been tested and found not to carry the gene mutation. Other couples decide to start their pregnancy by throwing the genetic dice (often 50:50 odds) and consider having a prenatal test such as an amniocentesis at about 15 weeks into the pregnancy. These nearly four months of waiting are extremely stressful as the couples debate whether to have the test at all, and what they will do with the information that it might bring.
PGD is a treatment which holds the promise of giving these families a way to begin their pregnancy knowing that it can survive. It combines the technology of in vitro fertilization (IVF) which has resulted in tens of thousands of babies being born to loving but infertile couples, with the ability to genetically a single cell removed safely from an 8-cell embryo. Those predicted not to have the lethal disease are transferred to the womb so that the couple begins their pregnancy knowing with some assurance that it will be healthy and with a commitment to continuing their pregnancy to term without the stress of considering abortion. In fact, many couples seeking this treatment are ethically or morally opposed to pregnancy termination. They, and their spiritual advisors, consider this process to be "anti-abortion" and "pro-family" and "pro-life."
By its very definition, medicine is contrary to nature. An antibiotic blocks the normal course of a bacterial infection and surgery intervenes to correct structural abnormalities in our bodies. Reproductive medicine assists nature, but like any new medical advance, it has the potential for being abused. Most (hopefully all) of us would consider the use of PGD for social gender selection to be repugnant. At the other end of the spectrum, there has been a concerted effort within the Jewish population to eliminate the horrendous disease of Tay Sachs. Indeed, there is a big difference between a "genetic trait" and a "lethal disease." I believe that the ultimate goal should be to scientifically understand and cure these terrible genetic diseases. But until that day is here, PGD and similar techniques of medicine represent the best opportunity available for many desperate families.
Richard Doerflinger, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, responds:
We should support research that can ameliorate and ultimately cure these terrible genetic problems. But we need to start from the premise that those who have the problems are fellow human beings with inherent worth. NIH officials were surprised when they found that these proposals for screening out "defective" embryos were often opposed by the parents of children who already have the defect. They felt their children's worth was being thrown into question.
In any case I don't think we can weigh a basic moral evil -- the destruction and discarding of human lives -- against supposed benefits to the human race. That way lies the moral approach of a totalitarian society, that thinks it can use and abuse individual human beings in accordance with some grand scheme promising "the greatest good for the greatest number."
Either human embryos are human beings, or they are not. If they are not, then there's no need to wait for a genetic imperfection before we destroy them. If, as modern embryology tells us, they are indeed part of the continuum of human life, then the notion that genetic flaws enable us to destroy the "imperfect" embryos has implications for the equal dignity of human beings after birth as well.
Another point: A member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel who does such genetic testing of embryos has said that embryos can be tested for over 28 different kinds of flaws now and this number will soon grow enormously. Where will anyone draw the line? This scientist admitted, for example, that once such screening is in clinical use it will inevitably be used by some to select for the desired "sex" of a baby and other features.
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
