An Admirable Nuance?
“I think the Church of Scotland is to be admired to be able to create this type of nuanced report, trying to make proposals about this type of thing rather than just condemning it like so many faith groups.” - Sheila McLean, professor of medical ethics at Glasgow University
According to the Scotsman, a committee of the Church of Scotland has just come out in favor of the use of embryos originally created for IVF for stem cell research. Only for the embryos less than 14 days old, however. It was this decision which was applauded by the medical ethicist above. I found her statement full of enlightenment. First, it seems that only those who agree with stem cell research on human embryos make proposals. If you disagree, you are making condemnations. I suppose it would be too much to ask if Ms. McLean was aware she just issued a (Oh, my!) condemnation! Apparently, one is not allowed to take a stand against something on principle and have her thoughts be considered a true proposal.
Second, I just learned a new euphemism for totally inconsistent, illogical, and irrational…”nuanced”. Merriam Webster Online defines nuance as: 1 : a subtle distinction or variation 2 : a subtle quality : NICETY 3 : sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value). I’m not quite sure the word applies. This report, which many medical experts have called “brave” was roundly criticized by the Roman Catholic Church which claimed that this was leading down a dangerous path where the end justifies the means. Here’s a brief excerpt from the article:
A key part of the report, and that likely to prove most contentious, is the assertion that embryos under 14 days old did not have the “moral status” of humans.
It says that although for some in the church “the embryo already has the same human dignity as a person who has been born”, the majority of the working group took the view that “the moral status of the human embryo is not established until some time into its biological development after conception”.
On what logic or rational basis was the decision made that at 14 days an embryo has inferior or no moral status. As one critic asked, why not 13 days, or 15 days, or 3 months, or 6 months? The committee offered no support for their arbritrary assignment of human value. In the words of Keith Plummer at The Christian Mind, where I first heard of this report:
The Church’s position, regardless of how vehemently it may deny it, reduces to an affirmation that human life is not inherently valuable. Rather, only those members of the species who have reached an arbitrarily decided upon level of development are worthy of society’s protection.