When is an embryo not an embryo? And what is all this fuss about stem cell research anyway? Stem cells promise to be a panacea for all the degenerative disorders that humans may suffer from as they cease to enjoy the pleasures of a prolonged lifespan. However, extracting stem cells currently involves destruction of an embryo, a procedure which is ethically unacceptable.
Not any more, according to some investigators from the US. A single cell removed from an eight-cell embryo does not usually lead to its destruction. From that single cell, millions of other cells can be grown in the laboratory and from these, multiple uses can be made, leading one to hope that these cells or their extracts may be used to treat diseases for which there is no current cure. Already in China such cells are being injected into patients with Alzheimer's Disease with claims that patients showed considerable benefit and no harm resulting from the procedure.
But does this technique really solve any ethical problem? Does the fact that the original embryo is not destroyed justify the use of a single cell for therapeutic use? Is the taking of a part of the embryo equivalent to taking and disposing of a part of the body, say during reconstructive surgery? A surgeon may remove a finger or a limb which is eventually thrown away, and nobody bats an eyelid. But suppose that this discarded organ starts sprouting arms and legs of its own, and a head with eyes and ears and eventually self-consciousness. Such a weird scenario would certainly put a completely different complexion on the surgical procedure, and one would, no doubt, be very wary of undertaking such a procedure.
This parable, albeit rather stretched, highlights the problem with the single-cell stem cell issue. The single cell has the potential of growth and development unique to embryonic cells. Such a cell, if nourished in a suitable environment provided by the uterus, has the capacity to develop into a complete embryo. Destroying such a single cell is tantamount to destroying a fertilised ovum since both have such a potential. Whether an embryo consists of one or eight "stem cells" makes no difference to the principle that embryo destruction for the production of stem cells is ethically unacceptable.
In other words, the research breakthrough referred to above does not solve the ethical problem at all. It makes a distinction where there is no difference. All the objections relating to destroying an embryo apply just as strongly to destruction of single cells that have the capacity to develop into an embryo, since we make no distinction in relation to status of a human being as to whether this consists of a single cell or several billion.
The main attraction for stem cell research is that one day they can be used to rejuvenate and renew tissues, including brain tissue, that have been chronically and irreparably damaged. It is ironic to see that problems associated with the end of life may be treated with material extracted from cells obtained from the very beginning of human life.
One particular situation where such a therapy could conceivably be of use at some time in the future is for treatment of those with severe brain injury following, for instance, traffic accidents or degenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease.
One could even hope that they could be of value for patients in a "persistent vegetative state" (PVS) where no significant brain function is said to occur. Such patients are completely unresponsive to normal stimuli.
Last year the British and American papers were replete with the story relating to the legal battle over the life of Terri Schiavo who had been involved in a car accident and who subsequently developed a vegetative state following a US court ruling that a feeding tube should be removed.
Using sensitive "functional magnetic resonance imaging" techniques (functional MRI), which are capable of detecting areas of the brain that are functioning at any one time, neuroscientists have now shown that certain parts of the brain "light up" when such patients are asked questions or stimulated by conversation, indicating that different parts of the brain were responding and distinguishing between different scenarios.
The practical outcome of such findings is to emphasise the fact that current and standard techniques for determining brain death may have to be updated to include expensive functional MRI techniques before one could be absolutely sure that there is no brain function in persons who had been categorised as PVS.
Issues at the beginning and end of life bristle with ethical conundrums. These have come to the fore as science streaks ahead leaving legal and moral/ethical issues well behind.
The average layperson may find herself confounded by the technology and by the complications they give rise to, but it remains a responsibility of each individual to ensure that they can distinguish right from wrong.
Economic considerations have not escaped those interested in promoting technologies for financial reasons.
The possibility of providing treatment for persons with chronic tissue damage makes this modality of treatment extremely exciting as well as a lucrative proposition. The question I would like to ask the average reader is this: Would they use such therapy if they knew that it was derived from embryonic stem cells? Would they flock to the nearest clinic that is supplying an embryo-extracted elixir to prevent dementia? Would anyone have the strength of one's convictions when faced with such a problem?