 |
 |
The discussion on the ethics of the use of embryonic stemcells has revolved around the destruction of the embryo. From the article on Dr. Temple: The debate centers on the fact that human embryos are destroyed to get stem cells. Opponents say that no matter how young the embryo is, it's human life and should not be destroyed. Supporters say the embryo is not a person -- that it has no nervous system, organs or other human features, but instead is a barely visible clump of cells. I would like to raise an issue of accuracy and understanding: Destruction means usually that the destroyed item has totally ceased to exist. For instance a living being ceases to exist and no recognizable parts somehow survive. This however, is not true for the embryos used to generate stem cells. It is true that it will not develop into a new human being, but it does not get "destroyed" in the above sense. The cells live on and have their living identity. I view destruction as a dead end (pardon the pun), whereas the use of the cells causes the at least a portion to the original cell clump to live on, albeit in a different form. From an ethical point of view this is in some ways similar to organ transplants. If one takes the strict view then organ transplants should not be allowed because it involves the "destruction" of a human being, though usually accidentally (I am excliuding here the donation of duplicate parts, like a kidney). Is it then the intention or the age that make the difference? Embryos are young. Transplant organs are not. Or does the decision of the donor or his/her relatives matter? K. F. Etzold cg Carline ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn