What's
it about?
Science is a rational and objective pursuit. And the law…well, the law strives for
objectivity, but of course it rarely attains this goal. For instance, every time the
traffic laws change a procession of specialist barristers troop before Magistrates to
argue the minutia of each word of the legislative changes - how more extreme, then, the
prospect of changes to laws that govern the ethical behaviour of scientists and medical
practitioners? And nowhere is this more problematic than the recent debate on stem cell
research and the associated issue of cloning.
What are stem
cells?
Stem cells are extracted from embryos that have been created in the IVF program, but
have not been used to produce a foetus. At less than a week, an embryo begins to develop
these stem cells that are suitable for research. Crucially for the promotion of research,
these cells can theoretically be made to grow into any human cell, and so are valuable in
the research of many conditions like diabetes, Parkinson's disease and spinal cord
injuries. From a legal and ethical viewpoint, the problematic issue is that these cells
are extracted from embryos.
So what's the difference between a stem cell and a "normal" cell? Stem cells
are the raw materials that the body uses, in a state where they remain unspecialised, and
can therefore be grown to fit the use determined by researchers (although there is serious
doubt about the ability of scientists to create the specific cells). So, for instance, a
stem cell can theoretically be turned into cells that form muscle, heart, nerve and blood.
But here's the rub - in order to extract an embryonic stem cell, it is necessary to
destroy the host embryo. Hence the world-wide legal, ethical and moral debate.
What are the issues?
Embryonic stem cell research, from surplus embryos (destroyed in the process), has
attracted the most debate. Adult stem cells can instead be extracted without harm to the
donor. It is the destruction of the embryos that attract the most controversy, and pleas
from many not to change the law in order to allow the research to take place. This is
because human embryos obtained in vitro are, according to those who oppose the research,
humans whose dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their
existence. For others, embryos do not have the characteristics of human life, including a
brain, consciousness and even the ability to love.
Of course there is the "floodgates" argument, that is, if we allow this type
of research, it won't be long before embryos are created specifically for the purpose of
biological research, and not merely as part of the IVF process.
What can the law do?
The issues around stem cell research highlight a continuing problem for the law in an
age of the Genome Project, cloning and the exponential march of scientific research.
Clearly the law is lagging. For instance, the authors of the Constitution never envisaged
these types of problems. The States may be able to go it alone, and there would be little
the Commonwealth could do about it. And laws made today, informed by the latest research,
can be out of date by the time a final draft has left the Parliament.
But at an elementary level, it must be questioned whether the law is the appropriate
forum to deal with these matters in the first place. Words like "morality" and
"human dignity" do not find a happy home in the formulation of legislation. What
the law strives for is certainty - religious, ethical and moral issues are subjective
concepts that defy easy translation into statutory language. Moreover, most of us do not
take kindly to lectures or moral direction, especially when we are raised in a democratic
society that encourages debate and religious freedoms. Clearly, on an issue such as
embryonic stem cell research, well-meaning people can hold diametrically opposed views
that accord with their own belief systems.
Resolution
There is nothing wrong with an ethical dilemma. At the least it shakes the law from its
moribund tendencies, and highlights that centralised law-making machinery is hardly likely
to resolve life and death decisions that turn on a belief system. Innumerable families and
doctors deliberate on the treatment of terminally ill or traumatically injured patients,
behind closed doors and far from the intrusive light of the law. Many of us do not approve
ethical decisions made by a handful of members of Parliament, based on their religious and
moral preferences, just because they happen to hold sway in a finely balanced political
contest.
Perhaps it is enough in these days of appeal to instant solutions to simply acknowledge
that there are no straightforward answers. Compromise should be the name of the game, with
laws that encompass enough diversity to ensure a wide range of convictions. Certainly many
people would believe that the genetic "parents" of surplus stem cells should
have the right to decide how they should be used. At the same time we should encourage
debate, no matter how disconcerting, where all views are accepted so long as they are
offered in a spirit of mutual respect. What we don't need, but so often get, is the
self-righteousness that characterises so much of the debate from vested interests. Let the
law intrude where it must, but let's do it with an eye on the real prize, a society where
the most difficult problems provoke the most sincere deliberation.
By Geoffrey Winn
Creative Director
www.law4u.com.au