US Church Shows Flexibility on Stem Cells

The last thing I expected to see in a Times article on stem cell ethics was a USCCB spokesman leaving the door open to a future change in the church's position on stem cell research.

"Dr. Richard Doerflinger, deputy director for pro-life activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that the guidelines were drafted by scientists who favored "creating embryos just to destroy them," and that the Roman Catholic Church had not changed its opposition to stem cell research.

"But it would be harder to sustain that policy for the U.S. government if it had been shown that embryonic stem cells were the only way to cure certain disease," Dr. Doerflinger said, noting that that burden "has not been met at present."

Although one wonders how scientists are supposed to meet the challenge of pointing to stem cells as the only way to cure certain disease if using stem cells in research is to be discouraged. Eliminating every possible alternative?

How fascinating it would be to be in the room when experts in the field are coming up with ethical guidelines for this research. The ability to use the technology matters very much to them, but they are the best-qualified people in the world to judge what good and bad eventualities are realistic within our lifetimes, and what needs to be done to protect the good and prohibit the bad.

I wonder what baseline moral reference they use in formulating these ethical guidelines. The Catholic life ethic demands prioritizing life under all its forms, so stem cells are protected because they might have the potential to become life. The Wiccan credo - and the Golden Rule - is "Harming none, do what thou will." A modern version of the Hippocratic Oath strikes something of a balance between the two:
"I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. . . Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God."

Personal understanding is inherent in each of these great moral strictures. The debate within Catholicism about what constitutes life continues to make this seemingly simple teaching a seat of controversy. The Hippocratic Oath presumes that those who will live by it have well-conceived notions of required treatments and of the responsibility of caring for the living. It doesn't attempt to define every potential application of its tenets; that is left up to the moral sense of the individual adherent. Like religion itself, this code suggests a framework for approaching moral decisions (humbly and with perspective; a good approach for anyone) and assumes, demands, that the individual will consider wisely and decide individually. The ethical guidelines published by the National Academy of Sciences are several experts' well-informed, perhaps contemplative opinions. The fact that these recommendations exist doesn't absolve individual scientists from the responsibility of bringing their own moral senses to bear on their work; nor, as Dr. Doerflinger pointed out, does it mean that the final word on the moral feasibility of stem cell research has been written.

There is a scientific "sense of the faithful": if ethical or practical guidelines are not widely respected by the scientific community, they will never be adopted and will have little effect. Although researchers grumble about review board bureaucracy, most scientists today recognize the importance of independent observation to protect the safety and comfort of those who participate in research. A scientist who defies widely accepted ethical expectations can lose her right to membership in the scientific community; however, if she just does useless, unproductive research, she may stay in the community without ever advancing in it. This is a useful metaphor for Catholic adherence to Church teachings. If we are going to exclude people from our communities (and let's not, for that is no Christian action) let's think about the decision between those whose actions hurt others and those whose decisions only prevent themselves from spiritual growth and fulfillment. We all commit transgressions of both types: thank God the Church is a city on a hill, not an achievement-oriented ivory tower. Let's look at others' choices "with great humbleness and awareness or our own frailty," and remember that commenting on matters of the soul is indeed an "awesome responsibility." Cheers to Dr. Doerflinger for leaving the door open to dialogue.