Debating stem cell research

Last week, the House of Representatives voted, 238-194, to repeal

President Bush’s restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem

cell research. This would pave the way for the use of government

money for research on stem cells obtained from unused frozen embryos.

The Senate was expected to move on a similar bill, though President

Bush has already stated that he would veto any such measure. The vote

came after South Korean scientists reported success in cloning stem

cells that were a match genetically for injured or sick patients.

From a religious perspective, how far should scientists be able to go

in stem cell research?

I can’t speculate how far scientists should be able to go in stem

cell research because it is still too early to foresee directions and

possibilities.

The recent advancement by South Korean scientists who were able to

create a genetic cell match for injured and sick patients is a case

in point. Their discovery is very promising because it means someone

with an illness, such as Parkinson’s, diabetes or Alzheimer’s, might

have a better chance to replace damaged tissue without it being

rejected.

I’m glad there weren’t restrictions in South Korea to prohibit the

research that resulted in such promise for those suffering with

debilitating diseases.

In all religions, there is the most important dictum, “do not

kill.” How a society interprets this is, in large part, the criterion

by which it will be judged as either civilized or brutal. This brings

us to very deep philosophical, religious, and scientific

investigations of: What is life? What is killing? And what are

extenuating circumstances?

Within the Buddhist tradition, these considerations have led many

to become strict vegetarians and pacifists. In Zen Buddhism, a branch

of the Mahayana, the precept “Do not kill” must be considered

broadly, with the individual’s own realization through the practice

of meditation as the most important guidepost.

I was so impressed when one of my own Zen teachers spoke at length

on “not killing time” and “not killing others through harsh speech.”

Of course, the root problem is that we do not fully realize what our

life is and how our life is deeply connected to all that is living

and nonliving. That is why the emphasis in Zen is always on each

person resolving for themselves this root problem. Then “do not kill”

is not a dictum or commandment, but nonkilling becomes a way in which

we want to live more and more.

In a society made up of people with many different religious

affiliations, as well as those with no religious leanings, the

government must take the time to govern well in questions of life and

death. Questions relating to war, the death penalty, abortion,

cloning and now stem cell research are grave questions that demand

time, consultation, wisdom and compromise. They cannot be answered

through knee-jerk adherence to religious or secular ideologies.

I hope scientists, governments and people will continue to work

carefully concerning the future of stem cell research, considering

both the great promise and the possible missteps that could result

because of the decisions we make now.

Relieving the very real suffering of those with spinal-cord

injuries and debilitating diseases should be our first concern in the

case of embryonic stem cell research. At the same time, we should

consider the most far-reaching consequences of this direction as we

move forward.

REV. CAROL AGUILAR

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

As stewards of creation, people of faith are called to help mend

and renew the world in many ways. The Episcopal Church celebrates

medical research as it expands our knowledge of God’s creation and

empowers us to bring potential healing to those who suffer from

disease or disability.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (H.R. 810) was

co-sponsored by 200 legislators, including 13 Episcopal members of

our House of Representatives. Similar legislation has strong

bipartisan support in the Senate, despite threats of a presidential

veto.

Like the Support Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research resolution

that was considered and passed at the 2003 General Convention of the

Episcopal Church, H.R. 810 and S. 471 specify that human embryonic

stem cells are to be eligible for use in research only if the cells

meet specific criteria. For example, stem cells derived from human

embryos must be donated from in vitro fertilization clinics where the

cells were created for fertility treatment and were in excess of the

clinical need of the individuals seeking treatment, and donors must

have informed consent without financial inducements.

In recent years, biomedical investigators have explored the

possibility that the use of human stem cells might be effective in

treating such diseases as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke,

cardiovascular disease, diabetes and spinal cord injuries. Most

Anglican and Episcopalian medical ethicists have determined that

early embryos remaining after in vitro fertilization procedures have

ended can be donated for embryonic stem cell research morally.

Scientists must pursue research that promises to enable those who are

seriously ill with little hope of recovery to be healed.

(THE VERY REV’D CANON)

PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

I saw an editorial cartoon in the Los Angeles Times editorial

pages last week on this issue. It showed two angelic people on

billowing clouds looking down on the Earth. One was an old man who

said that he died waiting for a breakthrough in stem cell research

that had been held up by the government. The other was a baby who

said he died of stem cell research.

The very poignant point being, unless another method of harvesting

stem cells is decided upon, the currently accepted methodology would

lead to the deaths of unknown thousands, maybe millions, of unborn

children. It would be sickening to me to believe that we are willing

to trade the life of a child for the mere possibility of life

extension for an adult. There is nothing more egoistical, selfish or

inhuman than that kind of attitude. We will truly have become a

culture of death.

If someone does not believe we are creating a culture of death,

look to Hollywood. They are often forecasting the future of our

current decisions. Ewan McGregor has a new movie coming out called

“The Island.” In the movie, he is living the ideal life until he

discovers he is really a clone that was produced and is being held so

that the original person could harvest his body parts. Hollywood is

just envisioning the endgame for our current debate on cloning and

the rationalizing gymnastics people will go through to justify it.

The Koreans have merged the debates of cloning and stem cell

research. They have gone too far. If we cannot save lives any other

way than to take another, then we should not attempt it. After all,

we will all die someday. Why take someone else’s opportunity to live,

just so you can have a few more years?

You never know, the child sacrificed may have been the one to

discover the cure to the diseases people are using stem cell research

for. But they cannot find that cure if they don’t have the chance to

live.

There are legitimate ways to use stem cells without sacrificing a

baby to do it. I support those options, as does the President. It may

be more difficult, and cost more money, but it is not as expensive as

the life of a child.

SENIOR ASSOCIATE PASTOR

RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa

The explosion of medical and technological advances has created

present realities that were once only dreams for the future. We are

now presented with choices that but recently would have been derided

as science fiction.

Our moral dilemma lies in this question: Is entering into the very

essence of life an act of trespass upon the Creator’s domain, or is

it a legitimate use of the God-given quality of inquiry and the

God-mandated requirement to enhance life?

Judaism holds that the use of stem cells indicates a grateful

acceptance of a precious gift from God.

The employment of stem cells holds abundant promise for the saving

of lives and the relief of human suffering, healing the heart,

treating Parkinson’s disease, helping to recover from spinal cord

injuries, aiding diabetics and contributing to healthy and productive

aging, to name but several applications.

Two Jewish positions are relevant here: Life-saving measures take

priority and must be employed, even when conflicting with other laws,

and an embryo is not deemed a human being.

Many of the opponents of utilizing embryonic stem cells are wedded

to an agenda that defines abortion as murder. Is it fair that certain

theologies be considered the ultimate truth and govern public policy?

By contrast with those who identify a zygote as human life,

Judaism says that from conception to 40 days gestation, the fetus is

as “water;” and from 41 days until birth, the fetus is as “the thigh

of the mother,” a “body part.”

Human life evolves progressively and is not realized at

conception. Judaism holds that life begins at birth, and therefore

feticide is not homicide. Judaism is biased in favor of life-that-is

over life-that-can-be.

Since stem cell research is directed at saving life and

discovering cures for those who are fully human, Jewish tradition

would view this advancement of human health in a positive light.

It is not morally wrong to use unwanted human embryos for

research. The stem cell technology is morally neutral. Here is a tool

of such enormous potential benefit that I am angered at those who

would deny its availability on the basis of their doctrinaire

positions.

Marvels could be accomplished in eliminating the transmission of

genetic diseases from parents to offspring, in allowing people who

were otherwise incapable of conceiving children to be fruitful and

multiply, in cancer treatment and tissue regeneration.

Shall I or my loved ones, shall society itself, be denied access

to such a blessing because adherents of another faith deem it

criminal by their definition? If they would prefer to accept the

ravages of disease, that is their right. But to foist their sectarian

viewpoint onto millions of people who do not share their disposition,

and to seek to deny federal funding for research, is unacceptable.

I surmise that Nancy Reagan’s vocal support for stem cell research

is owed to her late husband’s affliction, even though it seems to

belie her conservative value system. As her loved one receded from

before her eyes, so did remote, philosophical issues.

If you are helplessly watching a parent or spouse deteriorate from

Alzheimer’s, daily weaken from ALS, or become debilitated from

diabetes, and you know that scientists and researchers hold out great

hope that stem cells have the power to defeat these diseases, what

would be your choice?

Mine would be the ultimate cellular service.

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach