God and the Embryo: Religious Voices on Stem Cells and Cloning

by Brent Waters

Book Overview

Discussions and debates over the medical use of stem cells and cloning have always had a religious component. But there are many different religious voices. This anthology on how religious... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 087840998X
• ISBN13: 9780878409983
• Release Date: July 2003
• Publisher: Georgetown University Press
• Length: 228 Pages
• Weight: 0.90 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.6" x 6.0" x 9.0"
• Grade Range: Postsecondary and higher

Customer Reviews

Very complete

The book is a series of articles from religious scholars about the subjects of cloning and stem cell research. It is not a book about attacking these subjects, which was a treat for me. Some of the scholars are long winded, and I avoided those articles. If you are doing a research paper on this subject this is a perfect book to have to learn the various religious points of view of the major faiths.

Medley of perspectives

This book had its genesis in a 2001 seminar called "The Ethics of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, " but includes follow-up essays dealing with later developments. It tries to catch a fast moving ball on the hop. The pivotal point in this book is the moral status of the embryo up to 14 days by which time the individuality of the embryo has become clear beyond all doubt. Up to that point identical twins or triplets can spring from one embryo, and two embryos can merge to develop into one. Different conclusions emerge depending on whether one places the emphasis on potential or on individuality. On the one hand, the early embryo is potentially a fully developed human being, whether identical twinning takes place afterwards or not. Must we not, therefore, refuse the option of using an embryo as a disposable object of manipulation, no matter how good the intention? On the other hand, if the embryo is capable of becoming two embryos, individuality has not yet appeared. Can one then argue from personhood? If not, is it wrong to generate embryos in vitro and to destroy them at this early stage with the intention of developing new cures? A new dimension adding intensity to the debate is the recent discovery of the possibility of therapeutic cloning which is a combination of the processes of cloning and stem-cell technology: a cell from the body of the patient is transformed into the (moral?) equivalent of a fertilized egg; this egg divides to the point where stem cells can be harvested; these can be transformed into specialized cells potentially suitable for repairing organs. Therapeutic cloning necessarily means the creation and subsequent destruction of embryos. The question of their moral status is critical to any ethical consideration. All of the contributors to this book would agree with the Pontifical Academy of Life statement of August 2000: the living embryo from the moment of the union of the gametes ... cannot be considered as `a simple mass of cells.' All agree that this special conjunction of cells is worthy of respect, but to what degree? Most would not accept as absolute the Academy's argument from identity and individuality: that before 14 days the embryo is `a human subject with a well defined identity, which from that point [of conception] begins its own coordinated, continuous and gradual development ... From this it follows that as a "human individual" it has the right to its own life.' One paper argues that the context of the genesis of the embryo (in utero or in vitro), including the intention, affects the status society gives the embryo. For another contributor, to create and destroy an embryo for the purpose of establishing a new stem-cell line is morally wrong, but, using the principle of `nothing is lost,' the use of excess embryos as a by-product of in vitro fertilization could be justified. Considering the status of the early embryo as uncertain, another contributor balances possible malfeasance against the `beneficence

Ethics In the Face of Uncertainties

This book is a well done collection of essays on the controversial subject of stem cells and cloning from various religious perspectives. While all were fascinating to read, several caught my attention. Especially Fitzgerald's, the main subject of his essay being the title chosen for this review. He makes the salient point that there are pervading issues of uncertainty on this controversial issue of stem cell research, especially in the two areas that some would make it seem it's a slam dunk: scientific and medical. What is not told enough to the general public about this issue is that there are equally if not more promising technologies out there to benefit disease and suffering than stem cell. Further, he shows how some of the previous track record of science in promising huge societal returns if society will only let science take the ethical risks have not only not fulfilled their beneficial promises, but have brought about tragic and troubling ethical/medical results. He further intimates that the results of some already stem cell research has brought more opening of "ethical can of worms" than it has solved. These need to be thought out, and he argues convincingly that science needs to provide more justification for such contentious reserach before gaining go ahead approval. Just playing the old "religion vs. science" card doesn't fit here, nor should it be played. Many other essayists bring out what is not really being discussed enough: source of stem cells. In vitro has allowed a supposed research population, with too much assumption about "eggs ready for research". Possibly this is area that society has a whole has been too uninformed and needs to reconsider. The supposed right to have a child at any cost mentality and ethic that has spurned such an industry and frozen embryo population has brought about this bioethic dillemma,now seeping into stem cell and cloning. James Peterson gives an insightful essay into this source issue. The highly fluid discussion of any moral status the embryo might have is engaged uniquely by Brent Waters. He suggests we turn to a most useful concept is our judging of this" our neighbor. Since this issue is in the news and the 2004 Presidential election, citizens interested in various religious views will be served well with this work. It includes some major religious confessional bodies' statement as well as the President's Council of Bioethics statement as well appendixed.