Dear Sharon Begley,
After reading your article on stem cell research I was left with a couple reactions. When biologist Robert Lanza stated he was "devastated" that adult stem cells were not as effective as embryonic stem cells for treating diseases such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, and others, I became confused. Why would we not use something that we have to help people with these horrible conditions? The problem is that many people view embryos as "little babies", and their use as morally reprehensible - essentially murder. The time has come to change the terminology that we use to refer to embryos. Embryonic stem cells should be viewed as a technology. A technology that much like many other medical treatments, can be used to help people and alleviate pain and suffering. The argument that god views Embryo's as little babies is invalid. If we look at the history of embryos, it becomes clear that before they were discovered that in the public consciousness there was no such thing as an embryo. Humans didn't know that they existed. Once they did, the term "little babies" was then applied - an obvious human construction. The language that we use to talk about this issue is paramount in our understanding of it. If embryo's were referred to as a technology, we would not be having this debate.
Sincerely,
Conrad Schoenleber
Very interesting letter--and I commend you for taking a stance on such a controversial topic! However, I feel like some of the language you use and the way you frame your argument could be a little off-putting. It's true that some people think of embryos as "little babies," even though up to a certain point they're nothing more than a mass of undifferentiated stem cells. Though the idea of redefining an embryo as technology seems practical and convenient, putting such a suggestion into action would undoubtedly spark heated ethical debate and lead to a lot of questions about the fuzzy boundaries of when we start calling the developing embryo a person rather than a piece of technology, why we draw the lines there, etc etc... To me it seems like a more productive suggestion would involve working toward some kind of compromise in the medical use of stem cells, rather than continuing this "we're right, you're wrong" back and forth. Just an idea, though--of course this is all opinion so do with it what you want!
ReplyDelete