|
Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1497187&mesg_id=1497540
Specifically, my religious community permits and encourages stem cell research, as set out in this and rather thoroughly analyzed in .
The gist of the argument in the is
Our Torah tradition places great value upon human life; we are taught in the opening chapters of Genesis that each human was created in G-d's very image. The potential to save and heal human lives is an integral part of valuing human life from the traditional Jewish perspective. Moreover, our rabbinic authorities inform us that an isolated fertilized egg does not enjoy the full status of person-hood and its attendant protections. Thus, if embryonic stem cell research can help us preserve and heal humans with greater success, and does not require or encourage the destruction of life in the process, it ought to be pursued.
Nevertheless, we must emphasize, that research on embryonic stem cells must be conducted under careful guidelines. Critical elements of these guidelines, from our perspective, relate to where the embryonic stem cells to be researched upon are taken from. We believe it is entirely appropriate to utilize for this research existing embryos, such as those created for IVF purposes that would otherwise be discarded but for this research. We think it another matter to create embryos ab initio for the sole purpose of conducting this form of research.
Because of the ethical concerns presented by embryonic stem cell research and the reports of potentially garnering similar benefits from research on adult stem cells, we would urge you to simultaneously increase funding for adult stem cell research.
Other elements of an ethically sensitive oversight regime would include a rigorous informed consent process from future IVF procedure participants, a fully funded and empowered oversight body comprised of scientists and bio-ethicists, and periodic reviews by relevant Executive branch agencies and congressional committees.
The more academic and analytical makes the points:
May a very early embryo be sacrificed for stem cells? Now that we have analyzed the possible ethical issues in destroying pre-embryos, what is the final outcome? For non-Jews, the issue appears most direct. The combination of the pre-embryo never having existed within a uterus and the generally accepted leniency toward abortion within the first forty days, would strongly argue for a permissive ruling regarding the destruction of pre-embryos for stem cells.
Regarding Jews, the answer is more complicated. Since stem cell research is a new endeavor and cloning of humans has not yet occurred, there are no published responsa on the topic. We must, therefore, look to more practical cases that encompass our question to find an applicable ruling. We find such an issue with respect to the best course of action for couples who wish to avoid having children with Tay Sachs disease when both partners are carriers of the Tay Sachs gene. A similar problem arises in families where the wife carries a gene for a sex-linked disease, such as Fragile-X.
The most promising option for such couples is preimplantation diagnosis, in which a zygote conceived in vitro has a few cells removed to be tested for genetic defects before implantation. Only a zygote that is not homozygous for Tay Sachs or not a male carrier of Fragile-X would be implanted. Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliyashuv, possibly the most influention posek in Israel today, has permitted preimplantation diagnosis and destruction of affected zygotes to prevent cases of Fragile-X and even in a case of a woman with neurofibromatosis who only had skin lesions. Rabbi Dovid Feinstein has taken a similar view as to the permissibility of discarding "extra" pre-embryos. Pre-implantation diagnosis, which is already accepted by some Rabbinic authorities, is likely to be acceptable to most Jewish legal experts when used to prevent serious diseases in offspring.
Based on these rulings, it would seem that we now have a practical answer to our question of stem cell research. If the pre-embryo may be destroyed, it certainly may be used for research purpose and other life-saving work. In fact, Rabbi Moshe Dovid Tendler, in testimony for the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, argued strongly in favor of the use of pre-embryos for stem cell research. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that this conclusion is not unanimous and that all of these rulings are predicated upon the understanding that the pre-embryo is not included in the prohibition of retzicha (murder).
The bottom line, for my community of faith, is that Halacha (Jewish law) permits stem cell research, and based on the writings of Moses ben Maimon ("Maimonides" - an 11th Century religious and medical scholar), my faith probably requires that we go forward with stem cell research to relieve suffering.
So, we ask the second question, what issues arise when stem cell research -- and the therapies derived therefrom -- are denied because of sectarian (in the "sect specific" sense) scriptural interpretations?
We start from the Bill of Rights:
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The two clauses of the First Amendment:
1. The "establishment" clause -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
2. The "free exercise" clause -- Congress shall make no law ... ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
To a person with a disease "manageable" or "curable" by a stem cell derived therapy - and whose faith permits such therapy --- the use of such stem cell derived therapy is the "free exercise" of their religion.
To prohibit their use of such therapy because of a sect specific scriptural interpretation amounts to the "establishment" of a religion.
Access to stem cell research derived therapies is a constitutionally protected right. At the very least violates the Constitution.
I would go so far as to argue that a ban on Federal funding - for sect specific theocratic reasons, amounts to a proscribed "establishment" of A specific religion. |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
