|
|
TWO events
last week have re-ignited the never quite dormant debate about
the status of the human embryo or foetus. The first was the
showing of a documentary on television which graphically allowed
the viewer to see an actual pregnancy termination. The second was
the announcement that Professor Ian Wilmut (‘father’
of Dolly the sheep) was applying to the Human Fertilisation and
Embryology Authority for a licence to conduct specific research
on what used to be called ‘pre-embryos’ using cloning
technology.
Perhaps predictably, each of these stories
has been seized upon primarily by those groups who are usually
referred to as ‘pro-life’. The undoubtedly unpleasant
sight of an abortion being carried out cannot but generate a
powerful emotional and moral response. Equally, for those who
believe that life begins at conception, the use of human embryos
for any purpose (no matter how potentially beneficial for others)
is anathema. On the other side of this, often polarised, debate,
many believe that abortion is a woman’s right, and that the
embryo of the human species is not a person, and can therefore be
used in legitimate research projects.
At the outset,
however, it is important to look behind the rhetoric of the
lobbies who tend to dominate the debate. Importantly, we should
not allow the terminology of ‘pro-life’ to dominate
the debate. It is frankly an insult to those who approve of
embryo research for important purposes and within proper control,
or those who believe that women should not be forced to continue
with a pregnancy that threatens their physical or psychological
well-being, to infer that they are somehow ‘anti-life’;
the logical opposite of ‘pro-life’. Equally, it
should be recognised that those who are ‘pro-choice’
do not treat the undoubtedly difficult issue of what can or
should be done with embryos or foetuses lightly.
However,
what makes this debate so apparently intractable is that each
side of the debate highlights specific characteristics and then
claims that they have some inherent value which mandates a
particular outcome. The problem is that the location of these
characteristics differs. It is entirely consistent that those who
oppose abortion also oppose embryo research. It is equally
consistent that those who believe that abortion should be
permissible feel the same way about embryo research. For those
fortunate enough to fall into one of these categories the
question is essentially straightforward and the answer is clear.
However, I suspect that the majority of people do not fit
easily into either category. The moral and ethical arguments are
highly complex, and not always susceptible of the certainty that
characterises the opposing lobby groups described above. For
example, even those who do not approve of abortion in some
circumstances might agree that it should be permissible where the
pregnancy is the result of rape. Those who are uncomfortable with
using embryos for research, which will necessarily entail their
ultimate destruction, might agree that, if the outcome of the
research was, for example, a cure for cancer or, as in Ian
Wilmut’s case, treatment for motor neurone disease, the
balance might tip towards allowing the research. In other words,
people will often accept a ‘bad’ outcome if it also
includes a ‘good’ one.
This is at the real
heart of the problem - not whether people are categorised as pro-
or anti-life. To use the example of the abortion film, the
ethical issues are not altered by the fact that it is something
which I for one chose not to witness. In other words, the fact
that it is incredibly difficult to watch the deliberate
destruction of something that could become a fully formed child
does not automatically change the foundations of the debate,
especially for those who do not have the certainty associated
with the lobby groups already referred to. As an example, were we
to see the actual death of a soldier in Iraq on the television it
would not alter the question of whether or not the war is just,
although it would clearly affect us emotionally. In other words,
the emotional response, while not insignificant, is not at the
core of the ethical debate. Interestingly, the film-maker herself
concedes that not even filming the abortion changed her
pro-choice position, although she clearly found making the film
very difficult.
In so far as Professor Wilmut’s
proposal is concerned, it is right that this first UK application
is subject to discussion. However, as with the abortion example,
it is imperative that the debate is conducted on principled
rather than purely emotional terms. It is not good enough simply
to retreat to arguments like ‘the embryo is a person’
or ‘the embryo is just a collection of cells’.
Rather, the real question to be faced by those for whom the
answer cannot be located in an extreme position, is when, if
ever, we think it permissible to use embryos for the benefit of
others. Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether or
not alternative ways of conducting the research are available,
the hard decision is whether and when the potential benefits
outweigh the harms.
The motor neurone disease association
recognises that the research could be of enormous significance
(very possibly in the long term not just for those suffering from
that particularly unpleasant condition) and will support it so
long as it is legal and based in sound science. That is not,
however, to say that they do not understand that this is
contentious ethical territory; simply, they gauge the benefits
and disbenefits to be potentially weighted in favour of the
benefits.
This, in fact, is the position taken by the
law. Both abortion and embryo research are lawful in the UK in
certain circumstances. The law, of course, needn’t be based
in any particular morality. Indeed, by attempting to accommodate
as many views as possible the law can often seem to be lacking in
principle, but it is not ignorant of principle. The public,
however, does have a current opportunity to influence this
debate. The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and
Technology is currently conducting a review of the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Act which controls both abortion and
embryo research. Doubtless those with strong views on either
issue will be seeking to make their voices heard in that process.
Hopefully, so too will be those for whom the debate is much more
complex.
|
|