CPL Home About CPL News and Events Pro-Life Medical Resources Pro Life Links CPL Site Map Donate today and make a difference! Contact CPLSearch CPL
Position Statements
Vital Signs Pro-Life Newsletter
Life Issues
Conscience Issues
Medical Student Resources
 
 
Women's Health After Abortion
 

Stem Cell Research
April 2001

Response to Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) discussion paper, Human Stem Cell Research: Opportunities for Health and Ethical Perspectives , on proposed guidelines for funding of human embryonic stem cell research in Canada.

Canadian Physicians for Life welcomes discussion and investigations relating to stem cell research. We strongly agree with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) that there is an "urgent need for clear guidelines for stem cell research." The compelling ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem cell research demand oversight beyond the traditional peer review process.

A HUMAN BEING

The ethical problem of human embryonic stem cell research is the source of the cells. Living human embryos must be destroyed in the process of taking their stem cells. It is never ethically acceptable to intentionally destroy a human being, no matter how small.

The Tri-Council Policy Statement recommendation, supported by the Discussion Paper, that "Research involving embryos be permitted up to 14 days after their formation by combination of the gametes," is purely arbitrary. It is an objective scientific fact that human life begins at conception/fertilization. This is not a "faith" position or a "belief." We are human beings even at the one-cell stage.

A human embryo is not a "potential human being." It is a human being. It is precisely what a human being looks like at that point of his/her life. Our inability to visually recognize the humanity of the embryo should not contribute to discrimination against these smallest members of the human family.

HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH IS UNETHICAL

It is unethical to harm or destroy some human beings in order to benefit others. International documents such as the Nuremburg Code, the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki, and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights reject the use of human beings in experimental research without their informed consent and permit research on incompetent subjects only if there is minimal risk, and therapeutic benefit for the human subject. ( 1 )

An ethic which condones research using human embryos violates the standard ethical principle in medicine of non-maleficence. It devaluates human life, damages the integrity of science and medicine, and degrades society as a whole.

The question is:  Do we value all human beings as equal? Human embryonic stem cell research assigns different values to different human beings, designating some as people and some as property. ( 2 )

The "material and methods" section of a research protocol is part of the whole experiment. Ethically, the means used as well as the end or goal desired must be ethical. It is absurd to recommend "ethical oversight" of a procedure that, because it requires the death and destruction of some living human beings, is unethical in its essence. Where would such a research ethic lead? To research involving older embryos, terminally ill, or other "expendable" human beings? To eugenic manipulation of the human genome? If it is "ethical" to use embryos for their stem cells to promote human health, will it soon be "ethical" to manipulate embryos to improve the human race?

ETHICAL RESEARCH

Utilizing human stem cells obtained from sources that do not require the destruction of human embryos, such as adult blood, bone marrow and nerve tissue, and umbilical cords and placentas, is not controversial. There is enormous promise in these areas of research but, as in the Discussion Paper, many sources discuss them only as an afterthought.

Canadian Physicians for Life urges policy makers and the Canadian public to examine the potential and success of ethical stem cell research and promote these promising areas. Do No Harm: The American Coalition for Research Ethics publishes a list of current clinical applications as well as potential applications of adult stem cells ( www.stemcellresearch.org ). The scientific literature overwhelmingly demonstrates that adult stem cells are already fulfilling the goals only hoped for with embryonic stem cells, making the destruction of human embryos unjustifiable. ( 3 )

Breakthroughs in this area of research abound. For example, in a November 2000 presentation to the American Heart Association, Dr. Ray Chiu, of McGill University in Montreal, reported on the successful use of mature bone marrow stem cells in restoring damaged heart tissue in rats. This finding holds enormous potential for treating heart disease. A significant advantage of using a patient's own stem cells is the avoidance of transplant rejection. ( 4 )

The CIHR Working Group advocates "Canadian stem cell researchers remain at the forefront of their field, while conducting their research according to ethical standards." We assert that Canadian scientists should focus our public resources on the exceptionally promising areas of stem cell research which are acceptable to all Canadians, and forego the ethically troublesome practice of human embryonic stem cell research.

"SURPLUS" EMBRYOS?

The Working Group recommends research be permitted and funded using human embryos that remain after infertility treatments but does not support the creation of human embryos by in vitro fertilization for the purpose of deriving stem cell lines. However, no framework exists to prevent practitioners from producing surplus embryos for research purposes. Commercialization of human beings could result. Indeed, news reports have uncovered that a money-making marketplace for fetal tissue already exists in Canada and the United States. ( 5 ) We urge you to reject the concept that human embryos are "surplus" human beings and therefore disposable.

ABORTION CONNECTION

The Discussion Paper also recommends the use of fetal tissue. Human embryonic stem cell research requires ongoing collaboration with elective abortion. Scientists using fetal cells from induced abortion for research purposes place themselves in moral complicity with abortion providers. Before an abortion takes place, researchers will on the availability of the fetus which will be destroyed.

A 1995 survey by the Joint Centre for Bioethics at the University of Toronto found that, among women who would consider having an abortion, 17 per cent would be more likely to undergo an abortion if fetal tissue could be donated for medical use. ( 5 )  When one considers the current abortion rate in Canada (114,648 in 1997), the extra number of abortions that may occur, based on a false premise, becomes a real public health issue.

CONSENT

The Discussion Paper identifies informed consent issues as "paramount." The Tri-Council Policy Statement recommends that researchers obtain the free and informed consent of the woman whose fetal tissue is to be used for research. The flaw in this counsel is that the fetus is not the body of the mother, but another human being with a distinct genotype, blood, gender, etc. Current erroneous re-definitions of the terms "human being", "embryo", and "fetus" used in "informed consent" forms preclude respecting the rights of women to give legally valid informed consent. The legitimate question also arises, whether a mother who intends to destroy her unborn child has not abandoned her role as guardian to act in the best interests of her child.  ( 7 ) 

The Discussion Paper recommendations state, "a woman should not direct the use of such tissue to particular individuals.this objection is based on concerns that the fetus not be used simply as a source of tissue but should be recognized as a potential person deserving of respect." This statement identifies the central question in this debate. "Is a young human embryo a person or property?" An embryo is clearly a human being in a dependent state deserving the utmost in nurture and respect. Diverse philosophical arguments on "personhood" are based solely on philosophical "theories"; thus it would be irresponsible to base public policy on them.  ( 8 )

FUNDING

The Discussion Paper's purpose is to provide funding guidelines. Federal funding of research involving human embryos makes taxpayers involuntary participants in actions they may oppose on both ethical and scientific grounds. Canadians remain deeply divided on the morality of abortion and rights of the fetus. Taxpayer funds should not underwrite research that involves the destruction of live human beings.

Scientists and patient groups that favour embryonic stem cell research are no doubt putting pressure on the government to fund this research. During similar discussion in Britain, an editor of the prestigious journal The Lancet said,

In just a few days a moral issue that ought to trouble even those with no religious beliefs has been taken over by scientists, by politicians and by money. The irony is that by the time the matter is resolved it may no longer be relevant. If stem cells do turn out to be a significant source of therapeutic agents they could come not from human embryos but from alternatives such as reprogrammed adult cells. ( 9 )

The CIHR Working Group on Stem Cells has put forward recommendations for discussion and invites consultation from individuals and organizations. We sincerely hope these conclusions are not foregone and merely a vehicle to articulate reasons for what researchers want to do. We question whether any members of the Working Group are opposed to embryo research.

CIHR should ban human embryo research and make explicit its application to embryonic stem cell research. We urge you to support and fund only promising, ethical research that affirms the value of human life.

  1. "On Human Embryos and Stem Cell Research. " The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics . On-Line. Available:  http://www.stemcellresearch.org/statement/statement.htm
  2. Kathryn Jean Lopez. "The Truth About Stem Cells: An interview with Dr. David Prentice." National Review , February 26, 2001.
  3. David A. Prentice, Ph.D. Professor of Life Sciences, Indiana State University; Adjunct Professor of Medical and Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine. September 7, 2000. Before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Available: http://www.stemcellresearch.org/testimonies/prentice2.htm 
  4. Mary Lou Finlay. "Mending a Broken Heart." As it Happens - CBC radio, November 15, 2000.
  5. Marina Jimenez. "U.S. investigates traffic in foetal parts." National Post , November 27, 1999.
  6. Martin, Douglas K., Maclean, Heather, Lowy, Frederick H., Williams, J. Ivan, Dunn, Earl V. "Fetal tissue transplantation and abortion decisions: A survey of urban women." Canadian Medical Association Journal , September 1, 1995: 153(5).
  7. Stephen E. Doran, MD. "Favoring Fetal-Cell Use Is Plainly Not Pro-Life." Omaha World-Herald , April 3, 2001.
  8. Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D. "When Do Human Beings Begin? Scientific Myths and Scientific Facts." International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999, 19:3/4:22-36.
  9. "Overexcitement on Embryo Stem Cells," The Lancet , August 26, 2000.