What do we need? Who benefits?

FOND DU LAC -- You've just been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Do you place your hope in God and pray for a miracle? Or do you look to human ingenuity to deliver cures to people now considered incurable?

Questions like these were at the heart of forum at Marian College on the ethics of stem cell research. The speakers -- ethicists, scientists and theologians -- all stressed that today's decisions have future ramifications.

Jesuit Fr. Kevin FitzGerald, a professor in Catholic health care ethics at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., said what we see now is "only the tip of the iceberg of what's coming." He encouraged his listeners to study the issue and go beyond media sound bites, including asking what kind of society we wish to live in.

The significance of these technologies goes far beyond national borders, meaning that we must sort through both the controversies within the United States and those between other nations and cultures, Fr. FitzGerald warned.

Mistaken belief

As an example of the complexity of the issues, he said that many scientists believe that Dolly -- the sheep cloned in 1997 -- started life as an embryo, even though it was grown from an egg that was not fertilized by sperm. Instead, its nucleus was replaced with a complete nucleus from a regular cell.

At the same time, Fr. FitzGerald said, occasionally a fused egg and sperm do not develop into a fetus, but a hydatid mole, a tumor that must be removed from the uterus of the woman. At any time, he asked, is this fusion of egg and sperm an embryo?

"Even though we are using the same word, are we all talking about the same thing?"

There are two justifications put forward in any controversial research, Fr. FitzGerald said.

The first is need. "We think we have to do this research to get the things we want to get, such as cures. But we need to look at how important is this research in the entire spectrum of research being done."

The second, he said, is the argument that "so many people who have these diseases could be treated by this technology."

Trickle down?

But realistically, he asked, how many will have access to these technologies? The World Health Organization reports that 2.2 billion people in the world do not have adequate sanitation and 1 billion lack clean water, he said. So, he asked, why would these technologies trickle down to everyone if clean water has not yet trickled down to all?

Dr. Arthur Derse, director of medical and legal affairs for the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, a medical ethics teacher, said the problem with using embryonic stem cells for research is that the embryo is destroyed when the cells are extracted.

Stem cells, he said, can become any of the specialized cells that make up our bodies, such as nerve, heart or liver cells, Derse said. In theory, if researchers can convert stem cells into specific body cells, the technology could cure Parkinson's, diabetes, leukemia and other common diseases, he said.

Stem cells can be obtained from adults, but "embryonic stem cells seem to be the most promising source," Derse said.

Dr. Lawrence Hurwitz, medical director of Lakewood Care Center and founding member of the Wisconsin Institute for Torah Study presented a Jewish perspective of stem cell ethics.

Back to Abraham

He noted that the world's three great religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- all go back to Abraham. All three, he said, are part of humankind's dialogue with God, and all three teach that every single human being is precious to God.

But each one has a different emphasis, he said. For Jews, it's obedience to the law; for Christians, it's God's love; and in Islam, it's fate and acceptance of God's will.

Jewish law has no clearly defined position on stem cell research, he said. Killing without just legal cause is forbidden and sanctification of human life is an obligation, he said. "The crux of the problem is when does human life begin? Is it at conception, is it at birth?"

Hurwitz noted that "In Ex 21:22, two men are fighting, a woman is hit or pushed and her fetus is lost." If life begins at conception, the penalty should relate to murder. But, he said, the Torah says causing a miscarriage is treated like a personal injury claim, and the one responsible is fined and the fetus has no more legal claim than any other part of the mother's anatomy.

In the Talmud, he continued, if the mother's life is in danger, one may destroy the fetus to save the mother.

But elsewhere in the Talmud, he said, a discussion of the unborn indicates the fetus becomes a person after the 40th day, leading some to believe Jewish law allows the products of conception before the 40th day to be used in creating something beneficial for an established human life.

Sperm potential

Contemporary Jewish scholars, however, look at Gn 38:9-10 concerning Judah's son, Onan. Reading this passage, Hurwitz said, they see in God's anger an indication that each drop of semen is a potential human being and not to be wasted. How much more, then, he asked, should an embryo be seen as a potential person?

"I cannot give you a definite answer from the Jewish point of view," Hurwitz said. "As in all things Jewish, this topic is debated and agonized over by well-meaning people."