Stem-Cell Research and Christianity

In the second appendix of Ethics in the Community of Promise, James M. Childs, Jr. presents a scenario involving stem-cell research. George, a politician, is forced to choose whether or not he will vote for or against this bill based on what he believes is ethically right. Since George is a Christian, he will have to use a natural law approach, and possibly a consequentialist approach, to make a proper decision. George will also have to decide whether he should vote based on what he believes to be right or based on what he thinks the majority of the people he's representing believe to be right.

Stem-cell research has the potential to provide cures for horrible diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, kidney disease, certain cancers, failure of the liver, and other such medical problems. The part that causes a moral dilemma is that many Christians consider human life to begin at conception, which means that stem-cell research would be creating human life only to intentionally kill it. So the ethical issue for George would consist of one or both of the following: when does human life begin, and/or is the sacrifice of some human lives worth curing many horrible diseases?

The first approach that George should use to try to solve this dilemma is the natural law approach. Natural law ethics basically says that there are a set of "natural laws" that are universal to everyone; and going against this set of laws disrupts nature, therefore it is immoral to break the natural law. On page 95, Childs says "Procreation by other than 'natural' means is regarded as contrary to the law of nature that God intends for us to follow," and he also says "Still others would reject [...] in vitro fertilization, because they believe such procedures violate God's natural order of things."

George would first have to decide whether or not he believed in vitro fertilization is ethical or not based upon how procreation should occur. If he didn't think it was ethical, then he would vote against the bill; but if he thought it was ethical, then he would have to move to the next decision. In order to make his decision about in vitro fertilization, George must decide when he believes human life begins. The debate about when human life begins has gone on almost forever and seems that it will never end. One side believes that life begins at conception, while the other side believes human life comes later. The reason this decision is important is because stem-cell research uses the "blastocysts" that are discarded during in vitro fertilization. According to natural law, life begins at conception, which makes things such as abortion wrong under almost all circumstances. In very rare circumstances, abortion and such are not regarded as immoral according to natural law. One of these circumstances is presented by Childs in Chapter 8. In this case, a fetus was removed during a surgery to save the mother's life. The abortion was secondary and necessary to save the mother's life; therefore, the abortion was not immoral.

Since natural law dictates that life begins at conception, but under certain circumstances it is morally alright to destroy human life in order to save another, George must decide whether stem-cell research is one of those circumstances.

This is where a consequentialist approach should be used. A consequentialist approach basically says that the choice that produces the greatest amount of good is the right choice. Using this approach, George would have to choose whether stem-cell research results in the most good or not. If stem-cell research is used, a human life can still be created via in vitro fertilization while the blastocysts that were to be discarded could be used to cure many horrible diseases and save many people from suffering and early deaths. If stem-cell research is not done on the discarded blastocysts of in vitro fertilization, then a human life is still created by the implantation of eggs in the uterus, but the other "human life" will be destroyed and wasted without having saved anyone.

Thus, according to natural law ethics and consequentialism, George should be able to see that stem-cell research doesn't cause any more harm than is already caused, but it will bring about a lot of good in the world.

The reason that George has to use natural law ethics and consequentialism instead of simply using the Bible is because there is no general agreement about what the Bible says about stem-cell research. Stem-cell research obviously wasn't around when the Bible was written, so the Bible can't possibly address the issue directly. But some people will argue that the Bible can (and should) be used in every decision. In this case, those people would argue that the Bible clearly states that life begins at conception and all life is sacred, therefore stem-cell research and in vitro fertilization are immoral. Others would argue that the Bible doesn't say that life begins at conception, therefore stem-cell research and in vitro fertilization is morally alright.

George is faced with a tough decision and, depending on his vote, may lose the next election. Even though the state would be losing a legislator with good character, this possibility of losing the next election shouldn't compromise his ethical standing on this decision. This decision deals with serious issues concerning human life and the dignity of life. Decision about those issues shouldn't be influenced by job security. The people voted George into office, he should do what he believes is right.

Personally, I would have followed almost exactly the same framework of decision-making that I have outlined for George. I believe that life begins at conception, making me against abortion. Before this paper, I have never really thought about in vitro fertilization, but Childs states that "many fertilized eggs never implant in the natural course of things" (182) which makes me think that it's not any worse than natural fertilization. And since in vitro fertilization isn't worse than natural fertilization, I would have to say that using the discarded blastocysts can only help us.

In summary, George was faced with two main decisions: when does human life begin, and is it worth sacrificing some human life to save many others. George had to use natural law ethics to decide whether or not the in vitro fertilization was morally right and then had to use consequentialism to decide whether using stem-cell research was morally right.