 |
 |
ND professor looks at stem cell issue By GENE STOWE Tribune Correspondent PLYMOUTH -- Americans will soon face crucial decisions on thorny bioethical issues such as stem cell research, a University of Notre Dame official told an ecumenical audience Sunday in Plymouth. Maura Ryan, an associate provost at Notre Dame who teaches bioethics in the theology department, framed the debate in Christian categories of mercy and justice. She was speaking at First Presbyterian Church's lecture series that ends next Sunday with a talk by Notre Dame law professor Gerald Bradley on same-sex marriage legislation. "It is not an exaggeration to say we live in revolutionary times in health care," Ryan said. "We live in very, very exciting times, and we live in very, very troubling times. "Should we do what we are able to do? Are there limits to what we should do even in the pursuit of good? We are, all of us, going to have to vote on these measures eventually, and it will be sooner rather than later." Stem cell research illustrates the host of issues that arise from breakthroughs such as in vitro fertilization and mapping the human genome, with vast progress expected in genetic treatment of diseases and even aging, she said. "Since 1972 we have been able to separate the components of reproduction and to bring them together outside of the womb," Ryan said. "It's now possible for somebody to be born into the world with five parents," she said, listing the egg donor, the sperm donor, the gestational carrier and the two people who bring up the child. "Who gets the Mother's Day card?" Those who favor stem cell research point to the "mandate of medicine" to ease human suffering -- the mercy side of the Christian tradition that includes 32 healing stories in the gospels, she said. Celebrities such as Christopher Reeves, Michael J. Fox and Nancy Reagan, wife of former President Ronald Reagan, win support for research that could lead to treatments of spinal cord injury, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and other diseases. "At the same time we are called to justice," she said, explaining that technologies should not benefit some people by preying on others. In vitro fertilization has not benefited people equally, she said. "Demographically, it's a technique for the rich," Ryan said. "People who have access to that are people who have access to the whole range of medical technology." Some argue that the easing of suffering is not the only moral good, and the destruction of embryos to harvest stem cells is an unjust use of one human being to benefit another. "Nobody is quite sure what these cells are," she said. "Any human cell can become a whole organism. Are they already a human being? Are they potentially a human being? Are they just cells? "It raises a whole lot of social justice questions." Scientists claim that stem cells taken from 4-day-old embryos -- usually the result of in vitro fertilization or fetal tissue linked with induced abortion -- are the most useful. Some want to draw the personhood line at 14 days, when a precursor to the spinal cord develops in the embryo. "I'm not yet convinced that we've exhausted all the other possible sources for stem cells," Ryan said, pointing out that stem cells can come from adults, umbilical cords and placentas. She suggested the ease of harvesting stem cells from embryos might lead scientists on advisory panels to downplay other possibilities. "As my father used to say, it's a lot like sending the goat to mind the cabbage," she said. "We are a nation of expediency. Our scientific community likes progress and it likes efficiency. "Like the abortion debate, it comes back to when moral personhood begins. Wherever you stand, you have to accept the moral burden." SOURCE: South Bend Tribune, IN http://tinyurl.com/p1q0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn