withallyourmind.net

In my last post I began evaluating the arguments of Kent Vrana in support of ESCR (see the last post for a link to the article). Vrana’s first argument:

Reason one has to do with what he and many other scientists see as a logical incoherency in the Bush administration’s position. Vrana gives about six public talks on stem cells every year, mostly to non-scientific audiences, and at every talk, he starts by asking for a show of hands: “How many of you are in favor of helping infertile couples by using in vitro fertilization technologies?” Almost every hand shoots up. “Well,” Vrana tells the crowd, “we destroy as many as 12 embryos to make one pregnancy.”

Vrana is right to point out a logical incoherency in Bush’s position of ESCR. It is incoherent to oppose the federal funding of ESCR on new lines of ESC’s but to allow it on established lines. Either ESCR is experimentation on and the destruction of human beings or it is not. Either ESCR should be funded in all cases or not at all. Many who oppose ESCR pointing out this incoherency and were unhappy that Bush did not oppose federal funding of all ESCR. Politics often produces incoherent policies based on the principle that it is better to achieve a partial goal when achievement of a full goal is unattainable. The incoherence proposed by Vrana, however, is one of opposing ESCR and approving of IVF (in-vitro fertilization). But, there is nothing inherently incoherent in opposing ESCR and approving of IVF in that ESCR involves the experimentation on and destruction of human beings and IVF does not. Those who understand what is immoral about ESCR also oppose the destruction of extra embryos in IVF. there is nothing incoherent about such a position.

Vrana’s second argument:

The second reason Vrana supports further embryonic research is that he believes it would be risky not to. Sure, he says—only using adult stem cells, parthenotes, and cells taken from amniotic fluid “has a certain ethical attractiveness.” But it’s not yet clear that these cells can do everything embryonic stem cells can do… “It would be like saying, ‘I’m going to fix up your car with a hammer and a screwdriver, but no, I’m not allowed to use a crescent wrench.’ You gotta use all the tools in the toolbox.”

Vrana once again totally misses the point. If ESCR involves the destruction of and experimentation on innocent human life, one cannot justify this by appealing to the benefit others might receive. The tool analogy is misguided. Not all things which can be done in the name of science is ethically allowable. Because medicine has the technology and ability to do a thing does not make it morally acceptable. It is morally reprehensible to experiment on and destroy some innocent human lives so that others may be benefitted.

He also mentions, but downplays the fact that there is no evidence that ESC’s can cure or effectively treat any disease while adult stem cells have already been used to treat a number of diseases.

The article speaks of Vrana’s many public speaking appearances on the subject of ESCR:

If all goes well, the audience, by the end of the talk, hasn’t been persuaded so much as provoked. When people get all the facts, Vrana says, “it stops being a black-and-white issue. And that’s what I strive for.” Anyway, we have to get used to batting this issue around, Vrana says, because it’s not going away anytime soon.

It is appropriate that the title of this article is “How Not to Play God”. It illustrates how not to think correctly about the morality of ESCR. Instead of helping us think more clearly about what is right and wrong about ESCR, Vrana just muddies the water with his poor ethical reasoning.