University of St. Michael's College

Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Ongoing Debate Between the Catholic Church and the Canadian Government

By: Julia Lecce

Introduction

“Thanks to the progress of the biological and medical sciences, man has at his disposal ever more effective therapeutic resources; but he can also acquire new powers, with unforeseeable consequences, over human life at its very beginning and in its first stages.” In the wake of the technological explosion of this millennium, a current problem the Catholic Church is grappling with is the creation of embryonic stem cells for research purposes. Embryonic stem cells (ESC’s) are derived from human embryos, and are a particularly potent form of stem cell that have the capacity to differentiate into a very wide range of tissue types. They can be designed to develop and reproduce as healthy bodily cells that would replace diseased ones, for those who suffer from diseases for which there is no cure.

Proponents of this technology, such as various medical research teams across Canada in both the private and public sector, maintain that these embryonic stem cells are the key that could unlock the complex nature of debilitating and fatal diseases. For years, these teams have aggressively pushed for legislation to perform such research, where recently, their efforts have resulted in the House of Commons passing Bill C-6: An Act Respecting Assisted Human Reproduction and Related Research, on February 11, 2004 . From a Catholic perspective, this is an issue that attacks the very sanctity of life, turning a precious gift into a disposable commodity, because these embryos are potential human beings whose growth is impeded. The Church vehemently rejects any action that tampers with or violates the rights of the unborn, for any purpose. These sentiments are illustrated in Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae, (Gospel of Life), as well as Papal Instruction Donum Vitae (Gift of Life), written in 1987. However, there is dissent in the ranks of both sides involved in this argument, where some government officials, both Liberal and Conservative, are against creating embryonic stem cells for research, and some organized Catholic groups, such as Catholics for Choice, support the research. Thus, this debate cannot be simply characterized as one between Church and State. It is far more complicated and requires attention to the highlights of arguments from both sides.

Yet, amidst this conflict, shades of agreement do exist between Church and State. Both advocate for the use of adult stem cells (ASC’s), and both believe that embryos should not be destroyed expressly for experimental purposes. A synthesis of both positions on this issue is proposed, where adult stem cells, agreed as beneficial by both parties, may be far more beneficial to combating disease than embryonic stem cells. Several other pressing conflicts will be discussed, including the issue of using surplus embryos from fertility clinics to conduct research that is allowed by the State, but absolutely opposed by the Church. There has been no definitive agreement to date on this particular issue.

Advocates of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The origins of the advocacy for embryonic stem cell research began in November 1998, when the “Holy Grail” of modern biology was introduced to the world. A team of researchers led by James Thompson at the University of Wisconsin produced the first human embryonic stem cell lines. This research was privately funded, and the embryos used were frozen leftovers from a fertility clinic. Embryonic stem cells, (ESC’s) are found in the inner cell mast of the “human blastocyst, an early stage of the developing embryo lasting from the 4 th to the 7 th day after fertilization.” Private as well as public companies called this innovation “therapeutic cloning,” because they believed the embryonic stem cells could provide treatment for a variety of diseases, including Parkinson’s and diabetes. The National Research Council and Institute of Medicine formed the Committee on the Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Research in order to address the potentials of this technology. They held a workshop on June 22, 2001 , at which panels of leading scientists, philosophers, ethicists, and legal scholars were present. This workshop served as a landmark: it identified the characteristics of stem cells, and after a collective deliberation, proposed conclusions and recommendations for the future possibilities for beneficial stem cell research. Interestingly, these propositions from the American conference have now come to characterize the rationale for stem cell research in Canada as we know it. The highlights of their recommendations include that stem cell research is essential in order to make progress in treatment for disease, and that when using embryonic stem cells, proposals should be scrutinized in order to follow strict ethical regulations.

Canadian Legislation on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Canada’s legislation on the matter of stem cell research was originally compiled in the Canadian Stem Cell Bill C-13, which passed third reading April 10, 2003 . On February 11, 2004 , this proposed bill formally entered Canadian law as Bill C-6: An Act Respecting Assisted Human Reproduction and Related Research. This bill was designed to prohibit cloning and other unethical reproductive activity, to regulate fertility clinics, and to regulate biomedical research. The bill stipulates that creating embryos for in-vitro fertilization is permitted, but creating them only for research purposes is prohibited, along with human cloning, which is also an offence:

“ 5. (1) No person shall knowingly

(a) create a human clone by using any ( b) create an in vitro embryo for any purpose

technique, or transplant a human clone other than creating a human being or

into a human being or into any non- improving or providing instruction in

human life form or artificial device assisted reproduction procedures.”

It also forbids the sale of embryos for research or fertility purposes, and illustrates the terms of consent from donors in order to obtain their embryos for experimental purposes:

8. (1) No person shall make use of human reproductive material for the purpose of creating an embryo unless the donor of the material has given written consent, in accordance with the regulations, to its use for that purpose.

Therefore, this bill does not allow the use of surplus embryos from fertility clinics to be used in research without the consent of the embryo’s donor.

Public Support and Rationale for Creating Embryonic Stem Cells

Proponents of this view, including Canadian celebrity Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease, continue to publicly appeal for stem cell research. In fact, according to Timothy Caufield, research director of the University of Alberta ’s Health Law Institute, public opinion polling has consistently shown 60 to 70% support for unrestricted stem cell research, including "therapeutic" cloning. Supporters believe that the ethical implications of using embryonic stem cells is a lesser issue than the greater scope of the problem at hand, which is to end human suffering by disease. Many Canadian supporters believe that an embryo is just a cluster of cells that can certainly be sacrificed for the greater good, and that a fetus is “too rudimentary in structure or development to have moral status or interests in their own right.” They believe that the choice between tiny specks of cells versus healing men and women is obvious, where a simplistic organism that does not think or feel may be sacrificed for the far greater goal of combating disease. This attitude is reflected in our Canadian law as well, which states that a "human being" does not exist until birth: an embryo, fetus, or baby is not considered a "human being" until it emerges completely from the womb. More radical supporters argue that many embryos, due to complex biological processes and genetic abnormalities, can be spontaneously aborted during a woman’s pregnancy. If nature is so wasteful with the embryo, perhaps it should not be given a lot of moral significance.

An often-cited argument that rationalizes the use of discarded or frozen embryos from fertility clinics is the principle of “nothing is lost.” Paul Ramsay postulates two exempting conditions to intentional killing: “One may kill when (1) the innocent will die in any case and (2) other innocent life will be saved.” In this case, the embryos from fertility clinics are bound to either be discarded or “perpetually frozen,” and innocent individuals are bound to die from disease. It has been argued that the moral implications of this practice differ from the practice of creating embryos solely for research purposes. These excess embryos will die, so nothing more will be lost if they are used in research, and hopefully nothing less will be lost to those suffering from disease.

The Catholic Church’s Opposition

Contrasting the perspective of some members of the medical community in favour of embryonic stem cell research, the Catholic Church espouses a strong opposition on this issue. This opposition is nestled in a broader context opposing other various “immoral” activities such as abortion, euthanasia, artificial reproduction, and contraception. Pope John Paul II describes these activities as “related evils,” and asserts that:

“Experience is already showing how a tragic coarsening of consciences accompanies the assault on innocent human life in the womb, leading to accommodation and acquiescence in the face of other related evils.. for research purposes of human embryos, destined to destruction in the process.”

The Pope feels that there is a slippery slope with these technologies, all relating to what he refers to as a “culture of death.” he Church’s role is to provide a saving grace in proclaiming the “gospel of life.” Central to this gospel is a focus on the moral status of the human embryo, because human life begins at conception. The Bible has made abundantly clear that God is aware of and cares for all stages of creation. Jeremiah 1:5 reads: “Before you were in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” Although this passage does not directly address the status of embryos, it identifies how God is closely connected at all stages of life, and embryos are in God’s presence. The distinction between an “animated” (one that is active in the womb) and a “non-animated” fetus was clarified in 1869 by Pope Pius IX, who required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy. This is the view that is currently upheld by the Catholic Church, and it requires that human life be protected at the earliest possible time, which would be conception.

The Catholic Church’s foremost argument against embryonic stem cell research is that it ends a potential human life before it has the chance to grow. This contention is strongly asserted in Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II’s encyclical known as the Gospel of Life. In this encyclical, there is much emphasis on the ‘incomparable worth of a human being’, asserting that “this proclamation is especially pressing because of the extraordinary increase and gravity of threats to the life of individuals and peoples, especially where life is weak and defenseless”. Human whim should not sustain the power to restrict impending growth. Scientists should not be allowed to halt a life that has the capacity to flourish into a fully capable human being, and one day be an asset to society. A main assertion of the Catholic Church is that embryos are not just an assemblage of cells. They are at a very vulnerable stage of life and should not be objectified. The 1987 papal instruction Donum Vitae is an important document in terms of considering the sanctity of life:

“Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized. “

When human cells are objectified, they are no longer a part of the mysterious and beautiful process of pregnancy. Instead, they belong to the laboratory that created them, and to researchers who will use the cells and then dispose of them. Donum Vitae, which was written well before ESC research was taking place, anticipated the forthcoming onslaught of embryonic research that is being dealt with today. Even though ES research was only theoretical at that time, the Papal Instruction still stipulates that it is immoral to use spare/frozen embryos from fertility clinics for research:

“ In consequence of the fact that they have been produced in vitro, those embryos which are not transferred into the body of the mother and are called "spare" are exposed to an absurd fate, with no possibility of their being offered safe means of survival which can be licitly pursued.”

On November 5, 2004 , Bishop Ronald Fabbro CSB of London delivered a comprehensive presentation on the ethical issues of human embryonic stem-cell research, during the Annual Lecture of Bioethics at the University of Toronto . In it, he directly tackles the issue of using spare embryos. He notes that this action is inherently wrong because the embryo is still a human being:

“A similar argument claims that only so-called “spare” embryos will be used, and that, surely,

cannot be a problem for anybody, since they will die anyways. Indeed, in many ways, we are

thereby ensuring that the embryos are not wasted or simply discarded. It is as if we are almost

doing these embryos a favour by at least “using” them.”

Therefore, the Church’s position can be summarized stating that humanity has humble beginnings. We all start out as embryos, and begin without a voice. We are completely vulnerable and depend on the care of others. A good end cannot justify evil means, because the act of destroying embryos is inherently wrong in the eyes of the church. In social justice terms, the broader social order is subordinate to the dignity of the individual. The Church stands firm in the belief that even if social order can be improved by using ESC’s, the dignity of the embryo, which would be representative of the individual, would be compromised. Since this compromise exists, justification would never be possible. To utilize an embryo solely for its stem cells and to impede its ability to grow is a restriction of freedom, and it is thusly immoral to waste God’s purposeful creation. These stipulations largely illustrate the central notion of Catholic historical consistency and longevity in terms of dogma. The church’s teachings are constant and stable, illustrative of Divine Law, and seen as God’s plan for creation. This plan includes human participation through procreation, in helping to be God’s stewards.

Some Dissent Among the Ranks of Church and State

Canadian Political Parties Opposing ESC Research

Recognizing the Church’s opposition towards embryonic stem cell research, there has been some dissent among Canada ’s main political parties, Conservative and Liberal, in terms of their stance on this issue. After Bill C-6 became official law, on March 22, 2004 , the Conservative Party of Canada implemented policies that would cut taxes, guarantee a more open government, and most recently, invoke a 3-year ban on embryonic stem cell research. They drafted a 26-page document entitled Policy Advice to the Leader, intended for former Prime Minister Paul Martin. In this document, they make a pledge for abandoning embryonic stem cell research in favor of adult stem cell research, which they deem more promising. What is interesting about this position is the seeming overlap between the Conservative agenda, and the beliefs of the Church. Both advocate against using spare embryos for research, and support other forms of research, which will be discussed shortly.

Further dissent is seen in the Liberal party, which is normally characterized by accepting and encouraging cutting-edge technologies and adopting a modern outlook on morality. Liberal MP Paul Szabo of Mississauga is considered to be an expert on stem cell research in the House of Commons. He describes how Bill C-6 contains numerous ambiguities, including an inadequate definition of the words “human clone.” It is also vague in defining the concept of “human being,” a concept that is nonetheless referred to throughout the bill. He states that it:

"would allow cloned human embryos to be implanted in the uterus at the embryonic stage and then be harvested for research at any time from the embryonic period through the ninth month of gestation - anytime during the pregnancy of a woman. Not only could researchers get stem cells from that unborn child, they could also harvest organs from that unborn child."

As well, it is vague as to when it is permissible to create embryos. Interestingly, it forbids the maintenance of an embryo’s life outside the body of a female after the 14 th day of its existence, and therefore mandates the killing of an in-vitro embryo if it is not implanted in a female uterus or developed by preservation Thus, there is dissent in the Canadian government on the issue of ES research, despite the current law which permits and funds it.

Catholic Groups Supporting ESC Research

While the Church hierarchy is unwavering on the ethical treatment of embryos, some Catholic individuals feel differently and genuinely believe that it is a woman’s right to choose if she wants to bring a life into the world. This opinion is put forth by some Pro-Choice Catholic organizations, such as Catholics for Choice. Generally, those who support abortion also support artificial reproductive technologies, and embryonic stem cell research, because the abortion issue at its core deals with the destruction of embryos. The Church has criticized this stance. Officials believe that it is contradictory to assert one’s faith as Catholic, yet maintain that it is morally acceptable to dispose of human embryos. This contention is especially aimed at Catholic politicians who, despite their faith, vote to keep these policies enforced and legal in Canada . However, in practice the Church appears ambiguous on this matter: Canadian Catholic bishops will not directly lobby on the issue of instructing politicians how to vote. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) refused to give direction to Catholic politicians on how to vote on the legislation of C-6. Bishop Terrence Prendergast has stated that the CCCB would offer a neutral position on this issue; that they are not able to formally instruct Catholic MP’s on how to deal with this pressing issue:

"While Catholic politicians must always seek to protect human life and dignity to the fullest extent possible, there can be legitimate difference on how to achieve this objective. It is, therefore not our intention to tell Catholic Senators how to vote because it is their responsibility to discern the best way to protect human life and dignity after reflecting on all of the resources available to them. This discernment certainly includes Church teaching, but also the Senators' own personal reflections on the political and social realities they face”.

To qualify this point, the Canadian bishops are not neutral themselves on the issue of ES research, rather, they feel that Canadian MP’s should vote according to their own conscience. Politicians should make it their responsibility to make use of the abundantly available sources detailing the Catholic position on the issue of embryonic stem cell research.

Working Towards a Synthesis of Opinion: Adult Stem Cells

Much opposition still confronts the issue of embryonic stem cell research between the Canadian government, and the Catholic Church. This opposition is mitigated by the encouragement of alternative solutions to embryonic stem cell research. In fact, a synthesis of opinion is already emerging between the government and medical community, as well as the Church on the use of stem cells for research. Both Church and State are advocates for the use of adult stem cells, which are taken from existing and mature human cells from various organs, such as bone marrow. Research has demonstrated that most differentiated tissues in adults and children also contain small pools of undifferentiated cells, thus suggesting the ability to proliferate in a similar fashion as ESC’s. Proponents of this therapy, both secular and Catholic researchers, maintain that one of its most beneficial features is the ability to avoid potential immune rejection of foreign cells: embryonic stem cells could potentially generate cells that are incompatible with one’s body, and produce the consequence of rendering ineffective treatment of a given disorder. Our immune systems defend us against all invaders, so even rejuvenating tissue could be mistaken for an invader and could be rejected by our immune systems, which would drive the need for immunosuppressant drugs. Although it is admittedly more difficult to isolate and propagate stem cells from adults, both parties realize that these cells do not carry the moral baggage of ESC’s. They are extracted from people who continue to live once the cells are taken. These cells are likely to answer many questions in stem cell biology in the future, and they avoid legal and moral implications associated with embryonic stem cell research.

Recent Developments in Adult Stem Cell Research

The same is true of using cells taken from umbilical cords, a more recent innovation being developed by Canadian researchers at the University of Toronto . The breakthrough of harvesting cells from part of the umbilical cord which was once thought to have no value, and has been found to contain a rich source of stem cells, was announced on February 9, 2005 . These stem cells are called mesenchymal progenitor cells, and have the ability to differentiate into bone, cartilage, muscle or other connective tissue. Dr. Allen Eaves, a researcher at the British Columbia Cancer Institute, comments on the value of the umbilical cord, saying that:

“The cord is normally discarded after birth and this is a non-controversial source of stem cells, and this makes it particularly attractive…more study is really needed to try and optimize the use of these cells… There's no question they have some therapeutic use."

However in order to conduct this research, as well as other adult stem cell research, more funding and further study is required for it to reach its full potential.

Re-Defining Humanity

Another recent effort to reach a synthesis of opinion has been by offered by Dr. William B. Hurlbut, a member of the President Council of Bioethics, who in January 2005 suggested re-defining what “humanity” really is. This proposal involves creating a new type of biological entity that is capable of producing stem cells that could differentiate, but would not rise to the moral status of a human embryo. To explain his theory, Dr. Hurlbut argued that if embryonic stem cells were "coaxed" into becoming a human kidney, "you would just have a human kidney, you don't have 10% of a human being. It's not a moral entity." This proposal is met with mixed reviews, some maintaining that it would still be an embryo, and others that this innovation could introduce unwanted gene mutations. Yet, the prospect is receiving some support, by individuals such as Dr. Paul J. Hoehner of the Christian Medical Association’s National Medical Ethics Committee. He states that: “Forever, we've developed the science without the ethical thinking and then played catch-up. Here we start with an ethical opinion and try to adapt the science to fit it."

Conclusions

In the wake of Bill C-6, the formal Canadian law regulating stem cell research, the Church is left in a precarious position. This law has left Canadian Church officials feeling stifled and frustrated, because embryonic stem cell research is an endeavor much opposed by doctrine, and the very foundations of the faith. It violates the sanctity of life and treats a precious gift as a readily disposable commodity. ES research infringes upon Catholic morality while being promoted as an ethically sound enterprise, because it would help millions of people who helplessly suffer from debilitating disease. The Church wants to cure the suffering of all people, but not at the expense of committing moral evil in order to accomplish moral good. It, therefore, promotes alternative measures to embryonic stem cell research, such as the use of adult stem cells, as well as umbilical cord stem cells, which are becoming cutting-edge research tools in order to fight fatal disease.

WORKS CITED

Donum Vitae, Introduction.

Committee on the Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Research. Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine. National Academy Press: Washington , D.C. , 2002, pg. 12.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/PDF/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-6_3.pdf

Dr. Moira McQueen, interviewed March 14, 2005 .

Green, Ronald M. The Human Embryo Research Debates: Bioethics in the Vortex of Controversy. New York : Oxford University Press, 2001, pg. ix.

Committee on the Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Research, pg. 31.

Ibid.

Committee on the Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Research, pg. 1.

Committee on the Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Research, pg. 5.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/PDF/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-6_3.pdf

Ibid.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/PDF/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-6_3.pdf

http://www.vetscite.org/publish/items/001359/

Waters & Cole-Turner, pg. 35.