Debate on stem cells needed

The response was all too predictable when President Bush exercised his first veto last month to prevent looser limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

A group calling itself the Campaign to Defend the Constitution condemned Bush for putting “the agenda of the religious right above the interests of the American people.” Editorial writers and commentators accused Bush of ignoring human suffering to appeal to his most “fundamentalist” supporters.

Some activists and political leaders are already gloating about the inroads they will make in the nation’s political and cultural wars because polls show about two-thirds of Americans opposed the president’s decision.

What is missing in much of the debate and analysis is discussion of the serious issues at stake as the nation struggles with how best to do good without doing harm in a brave new world of genetic engineering.

The facile answer – one that plays well in sound bites and political ads – is that expanding embryonic stem cell research can only be a good thing, offering the potential to help individuals suffering from diseases such as Alzheimer’s and diabetes.

But the reality is far more complex.

In announcing his veto, the president was joined by 18 families who “adopted” frozen embryos not used by other couples, then used those leftover embryos to have children.

“They remind us what is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research,” Bush said.

And it is not just the liberal punching bag – an amorphous, rarely quantified evangelical group called “the religious right” – that is concerned with principles balancing what is possible and what is moral.

Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, praised the veto for upholding the need to treat all human life equally.

“Ethics and science must not be placed at odds but work together to serve the cause of humanity,” Doerflinger said.

On the other side are strong scientific and ethical arguments for the use of embryonic stem cells left over from fertilization procedures. Supporters have argued that these embryos would be destroyed anyway.

Rabbi David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington praised the U.S. Senate for passing the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, noting Jewish tradition teaches that preserving life and promoting health are precious values.

“Only by expanding the current number of stem cell lines available for federally funded research will we provide hope to those in need and fulfill our obligation as faithful Americans to work to heal the sick,” he said.

What is needed is a vigorous moral debate, one that considers how far we are willing to manipulate human life to achieve potential benefits for others.

Majority opinion by itself is not enough to close off such discussion. Human beings have the tendency to consider self-interest over the common good.

This is the reason society puts up with the shame of tens of millions of uninsured Americans. As long as the great majority of Americans have decent medical care, it is difficult to make the moral imperative of universal health care a political imperative.

In a world where scientific advances at times seem to surpass the pace of ethical reflection, we have the urgent responsibility to lift these debates above their potential for use as political cudgels.

The poor, the handicapped, the vulnerable all have a moral claim on each of us.