ARTICLES

Stem Cell Shake Out

What Should Catholics Think of Bush's Decision?

By Eric Reslock

Among those who identify themselves as pro-life, the grading of the president's August 9 announcement is a split-decision. Bush finessed Clinton's year-old policy so that federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research can now only be provided for research on those stem-cell lines already known to exist. This will prevent federal funds going to destroy more human embryos. The decision will not affect privately funded research that currently has no limitations. While the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops reacted angrily to the announcement, some pro-life leaders praised Bush for displaying political shrewdness. The bishops' statement, dated the same day as Bush's announcement, said in part, "...such a decision is hedged about with qualifications, it allows our nation's research enterprise to cultivate a disrespect for human life." Joining the bishops in condemning Bush were Human Life Advocates, Gary Bauer's Campaign for Working Families, among others. On the other side, the nation's largest pro-life advocacy group, the National Right to Life Committee, praised the decision. Paul Weyrich, a Melkite Greek Catholic deacon who heads the Free Congress Foundation, blasted the bishops' statement for failing to acknowledge that the president made a moral distinction between funding existing stem cell lines as opposed to the previous administration's policy of funding the destruction of human embryos to yield stem cells. The August 24 Catholic San Francisco published the U.S. bishops' statement plus other condemnations, but also included comments from the Catholic League and others that were more supportive of the decision. In a separate column, Father Gerald Coleman wrote, "Mr. Bush's decision was thoughtful and respectful of basic moral principles while acknowledging the political reality of the situation."

In 1995 congress banned the use of federal money for research in which embryos are "destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death." But at the direction of President Clinton, the National Institute of Health issued revised guidelines last August that allow federally funded scientists to obtain embryonic stem cells from private laboratories. Following the announcement from Bush, Human Life Advocates announced they plan to sue the federal government for not following the original 1995 restriction.

Brian Johnston, director of the Calfornia Prolife Council and Western regional director of National Right to Life believes pro-life groups should consider the political and social landscape before rushing to judgment. In response to concerted media hype, some 60 United States Senators had signed a letter before Bush's announcement urging him to allow funding for stem cell research on human embryos. Johnston said, "If Bush would have taken an absolutist position against funding, which he had indicated was his predisposition, the senate was poised to immediately override his veto. This is the context in which Bush had to make a decision," he said. "Not only would that have ended up with the federal government involved in ongoing killing and cannibalizing, but with the veto override the most powerful man on earth would be reduced to merely a pro-life person with an opinion," Johnston said. "By drawing the line that he did, he has peeled off enough votes to prevent a supermajority from overturning his decision."

For Johnston, that outcome would have been worse because it would have brought federal funds to bear on unlimited harvesting of human embryos, and the executive branch would than be emasculated in its efforts to stop it. By limiting federal funds to adult stem cells those embryonic stem cell lines already established Johnston believes Bush will succeed in getting enough senators to back away from demanding unrestricted federally funded research, thus leaving the president's limitations in place. "I think the decision had a touch of genius in it. It is clear that the president is opposed to the practice of killing innocent human life; he had made a decision that would allow his values to become the law of the land. He has effectively thwarted the senate's threat."

According to the National Institute of Health, of the 64 stem cell lines it says are in existence, eleven are in California. A private research company in San Diego holds nine of these and two are at the University of California San Francisco. Last month, Dr. Victor Fujimoto, director of the University of San Francisco's in vitro fertilization program, told the Faith that his facility "does not harvest surplus embryos for research." However, he conceded that his lab does accept embryo donations. There is no prohibition against a private party destroying these for experimentation. The resulting information could then be given back to the lab.

Another researcher at the school, Dr. Roger Pederson, preemptively announced in late July that if Bush placed any restrictions on funding human embryos, he would relocate to Britain, where he would be unfettered by legal restraints. Johnston believes this move was a media stunt to try to get the federal government to enact a policy to disregard human life. Johnston said, "A lot of it has to do with giving moral legitimacy to abortion. During World War II, Dr. Mengele didn't [explicitly] support the death camps, but he justified his experiments as a way for those deaths to benefit humanity. That's exactly what these medical researchers are attempting to do." After Bush's decision, Pederson was already working at a lab in Cambridge. According to [the San Francisco Chronicle] Pederson has not decided if he will return to San Francisco to conduct research, but, according to Senator Barbara Boxer, he has convinced her to challenge Bush's position. Pederson claims that the existing stem-cell lines extracted from human embryos have been irrevocably damaged because they have been commingled with animal specimens.

Scientists who developed the cell lines, or self-replenishing cell colonies, reported that some have been tested in lab mice and are able to transform into other types of cells that they claim can help treat diabetes, Parkinson's, cancer, and other ailments. But no clinical use has yet been found for them. However, trials using cells derived from adult stem cells, which does not require the destruction of embryos, have shown promise in treating strokes, heart disease, and cancer, according to The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics.

Meanwhile, polls show that the ethical issues involved with stem cell research is confusing to most Americans. Many scientists believe there is no individuation, or human being, prior to implanting a fertilized embryo in a woman's uterus around the 14th day after fertilization. In other words, they believe no "biological decision" has been made to create a human being when a fertilized embryo exists outside a mother's womb. On the other hand, many Catholics believe that at the moment an egg is fertilized the human soul is present as a formal cause of the physical matter -- the two acting in tandem to form a human person. But what is the Catholic teaching in regard to the use of stored, fertilized embryos? By some estimates, somewhere between 200,000 and 1,000,000 human embryos are being stored at fertility clinics in the United States in vats of liquid nitrogen. In 1987, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said in The Gift of Life, that human life is sacred "from the moment of conception" so that human embryos must be treated with the same care as other human life. But because the Church holds that in vitro fertilization is illicit because it entails the dissociation of husband and wife, some Catholic theologians believe that adopting stored embryos in order to save them from destruction is morally impermissible. Others say it would be permissible only to save the embryos from death.

TOP