|
SRT Home Page What is the SRT Project? Site Map & Subject Index What's New? Highlights Current Talking Point SRT Publications SRT Newsletter SRT Information Sheets SRT Topical Papers Press Room Contact SRT Send a comment Guest Book SRT Trust & Associates Links European Christian Environmental Network Eco-Congregation |
|
Society Religion & Technology Project,
and the Board of Social Responsibility of the Church of Scotland
16 August 2000
See our Main Press Release on the Donaldson Report
See also SRT's pages on Human and Animal Cloning issues
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The long awaited Donaldson report recommends a change in the law to allow research into the use of human embryos as a source of stem cells, and the creation of cloned human embryos to be reprogrammed to make replacement body cells for a range of degenerative diseases. The Church of Scotland is at the forefront of the ethical debate over the use of cloning and stem cell technology and has for several years been in dialogue with the Roslin researchers.
We welcome the serious and detailed consideration of the range of ethical issues which the report represents. We welcome many of the present developments in medical knowledge and recognise a strong a priori ethical argument in favour of trying to treat serious diseases by replacement cells, via human stem cells. We encourage research on adult stem cells. These do not pose major ethical problems as such. This argument is thrown into question, however, for those methods where the source of the cells involves reprogramming embryos, even for many who broadly support the present legislation. Many in the churches consider that from conception onwards the embryo has the status of humanity, allowing no research or use that was not for the benefit of that particular embryo. For them the creation of dispensable embryos is inadmissible for any use, including cell replacement.
Losing the "Special Status" of the Embryo
Many others, however, have sympathy with the present legislation, but recoil at the new potential applications, as stepping over a second barrier. We think the Donaldson Committee is mistaken in asserting that the proposed new use of embryos "did not raise fundamentally different ethical issues" from the uses permitted under the present Act (4.10 and conclusion 27). What it endorses would be a radically different use of the human embryo from that currently allowed in research, and from the purposes on which MP's voted. Up to now, permitted research - into embryo development, fertilisation and genetic disease - still treats the embryo as an entity in itself, and is for the long term benefit of other embryos. The proposed use of an embryo simply as a source of body cells is a very different notion both scientifically and ethically. It would reduce the embryo to a mere resource from which convenient parts are taken.
The 1990 Act accorded the embryo a "special status". In 1996 the Church of Scotland affirmed the special status of the embryo as created by God, not just a ball of cells; but it also recognised the potential benefits of embryo research under limited circumstances. The new proposals would effectively remove the sense of a special status of an embryo, of an entity deserving of respect, to a mere resource from which to take cells.
We believe that the small change in the law could, de facto, change the way the embryo is regarded from the present "special status" to one where it is merely a convenient resource for replacement cells. It would push the present ethical compromise firmly and finally down the "ball of cells" side. The embryo would be viewed only in a utilitarian way as a means to an end. We note that a Ministry of Agriculture report in 1998 into animal cloning cautioned against seeing animals merely as means to an end. We should be careful not treat human embryos with less respect than animals.
The crucial argument in the Donaldson report over embryo use is ultimately utilitarian. It asserts that it is "not lacking in respect" towards the moral status of the embryo, provided they are used to secure benefits to human health. It claims that the greater benefits of the proposed research might command more respect (4.10). This argument only holds if the embryo is seen in purely functional and utilitarian terms, which many would find unacceptable.
Cloned Embryos
While we recognise the potential value of using cells of the same genetic type as the patient, the use of cloning methods to create embryos would raise serious ethical problems for many in the churches. It seems illogical to create a cloned human embryo knowing full well one would have to destroy it on ethical grounds, because it was unethical to allow it to go to term to produce a cloned baby. We do not share the Report's confidence that the present legislation "prevents the possibility of reproductive cloning in the UK" (4.20). Once cloned human embryos were created, there would be temptations for unscrupulous individuals to go the next step and implant them illegally. Laws can be broken.
The creation and use of cloned embryos should not be allowed as a general therapeutic procedure. We urge that nuclear transfer research should aim at avoiding use of embryos, by direct programming from one body tissue type to another. We welcome the shift in orientation of research in this direction expressed by workers at Roslin (4.19). From our discussions with them, however, we recognise that to achieve this might be impossible without some human embryo research. This poses a deep dilemma whether a very limited and fixed number of experiments should be allowed to obtain the data necessary to avoid any such use of embryos in future. The general principle, however, is not to use embryos routinely for cell therapies.
We welcome the report's opposition to human-animal cell nuclear transfer. It is ethically unacceptable to mix humans and animal cells in this fundamental way.
Urgent Need for Public Debate before Parliament Votes - Autumn is too soon
These are not matters to be decided in a hurry. It will take many years to know if such procedures would actually work. What we have not had, and urgently need, is a wide ranging public debate, like those which the HFEA promoted on foetal tissue. A very limited consultation of 1998, with only 122 responses on therapeutic cloning, was not enough. Society should beware of an ethical "gradualism" - making far-reaching ethical changes yet claiming they are only small steps. These may appear small changes to the law but dilemmas of great ethical weight.
We welcome the Government's decision to put these questions to a free vote, but the autumn is too soon. It is clear from surveys and experience that few of the general public or MP's at present understand these complex issues. It will therefore need a far wider public discussion before Parliament should put it to the vote. A recent House of Lords report highlighted the need, in these post-GM days, of a close public involvement over biotechnology decisions. These issues are too large and too far reaching to be scrambled through by a rushed parliamentary procedure. The Donaldson report should be a start, not the end of the debate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Bruce is Director of the Church of Scotland Society Religion and Technology Project, assessing ethical issues in technology for Scotland's national church, and a leading authority on the ethics of cloning and genetic engineering. The Kirk is at the forefront of the ethical debate over cloning and stem cell technology and has for several years been in dialogue with Roslin researchers.
Rev Dr Richard Corbett is a parish minister in West Lothian and has a background in science.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to the Top of Page
Return to Church of Scotland Press Release on Donaldson Report
Go to SRT Cloning Pages
Go to SRT Home Page
Go to SRT Contents Page
