Is Stem Cell Research Ethical?

[SaulChanukah]

by Daniel Eisenberg, M.D.

Today, a man lies dying of liver failure in a hospital. There is little expectation that he will be one of the lucky few to receive a transplant before he becomes too ill to save. Even if he did receive a transplant, he will be burdened with taking multiple anti-rejection drugs for the rest of his life, which in and of themselves would significantly compromise his health.

Tomorrow, scientists develop a method to build this man a new liver, one that would be a perfect match for him, requiring no anti-rejection drugs whatsoever. There is a catch. To perfect such a solution would require the destruction of other lives. Would Judaism sanction such a solution?

Jewish law clearly forbids the taking of one life to save another. The Talmud forbids saving one's life at the expense of another by asking how one knows that his life is more valuable than his neighbor's. Perhaps your neighbor's life is more valuable.

WHEN THE FETUS IS A THREAT TO LIFE

But, what if the life that would need to be sacrificed was that of a fetus? May we permit abortion to save the life of an already born person? The Mishna clearly states that if the life of a woman in labor is threatened by her fetus, the fetus should be aborted. But once a portion of the baby has emerged, we may not abort the fetus, because "one may not set aside one person's life for the sake of another." The principle behind this ruling is that one may kill someone who is unjustly pursuing a third party to kill him. Since the fetus, who is not yet considered a "complete" person, is "pursuing" the mother in a way that will inevitably result in her death, we may kill it first. But, once it has even partially emerged, it is considered a full-fledged person. Now we are faced with a dilemma, states Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, one of the most respected rabbis of the 20th century: who is pursuing whom?

WHEN PURSUING EACH OTHER

Imagine that you are transported back in time to Weehawken, New Jersey, on July 11, 1804. As you step out of the time machine you see Aaron Burr, pulling out a revolver to shoot Alexander Hamilton, Former United States Secretary Of The Treasury. Simultaneously, you see Hamilton also drawing his revolver to kill Burr! What should you do? Kill Burr? Kill Hamilton? Jewish law would rule that you may kill neither, because they are pursuing each other and you do not know which one, if either, is an innocent party.

In our case of the baby struggling to be born at the expense of the mother and the mother struggling to survive at the expense of the fetus, are not the baby and the mother each "pursuing" the other? In such a case, the general rule is that we may not choose either, since each is a complete and autonomous person, and each is both the pursuer and the pursued. Luckily for us, these scenarios are very rare occurrences in our day thanks to Caesarian sections.

But, since the rationale for abortion in Jewish law is based on the fetus being a pursuer of the mother, a life-threatening situation for another adult would not justify our killing a fetus, since the fetus does not threaten the life of anyone except the mother. Therefore, we cannot allow abortion, even to save the life of our patient with liver failure.

DESTROYING "PRE-EMBRYOS"

But there is hope. What if the scientists "merely" needed to destroy excess fertilized eggs from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures that are only a few days old and have not yet been implanted in a woman's uterus? Is the destruction of these "pre-embryos" ethically acceptable to us? That is exactly the debate that currently rages regarding stem cell research.

While stem cells can be derived from aborted fetuses and even adults, the best source for stem cells is the small clump of cells that compose the early zygote only a few days following conception. Therefore, to best investigate the latent possibilities inherent in stem cells, scientists wish to use the approximately 100,000 "excess" frozen pre-embryos that are "left over" from earlier IVF attempts. Is it ethical to allow the destruction of pre-embryos to obtain stem cells for research that may some day save thousands of lives?

Early stem cells have the ability to differentiate into every cell of the human body, potentially forming an entire fetus. If we were able to manipulate the conditions controlling cellular differentiation, we might create replacement cells and organs, potentially curing illnesses such as diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease.

But, the ultimate promise of stem cell technology would be to combine it with cloning. Imagine our man dying of liver failure. If we could clone one of his cells, but instead of allowing the cloned cell to develop into a fetus, we might place it into the appropriate environment that would cause it to differentiate into a liver that would be virtually genetically identical to that of the sick man. If we could "grow" this liver to maturity, we could offer the sick man a liver transplant without the risk of rejection and without the need for anti-rejection drugs.

Unfortunately, we still do not know if we can successfully clone a human, nor are we sure what practical value can be derived from stem cells. It will require years of very expensive, labor-intensive research to determine the potential that stem cells hold for the treatment, palliation, and cure of human illness.

ARE "PRE-EMBRYOS" INCLUDED IN THE PROHIBITION OF ABORTION?

Is it ethical to sacrifice pre-embryos to experiment with their stem cells in the hope of some day saving many lives? While many ethical issues arise, the key one is whether pre-embryos are included in the prohibition of abortion. The consensus thus far is that an embryo is not protected by the limitations on abortion until it is implanted in a woman. Most rationales given for why the Torah forbids abortion, except to save the mother's life, revolve around the fetus being within the woman.

The logic of only ascribing humanity to an embryo once it is implanted in the womb is simple. Left undisturbed, an embryo in its mother's womb will most likely continue to grow and reach parturition. But the pre-embryo created by IVF, if left untouched in its "test tube," will die. The pre-embryo requires active intervention to even reach a situation which we consider to be true potential life. The alternative to this reasoning would be to argue that the killing of adult skin cells is forbidden, since a person could potentially be cloned from any cell in an adult's body.

ANOTHER RATIONALE

Additionally, there is another sound reason to allow destruction of pre-embryos to save a life. When necessary to save a life, Judaism requires us to transgress all of the laws in the Torah, with the exception of murder, adultery, and idol worship. For example, if someone is gravely ill on Yom Kippur, we would drive in a car to get them non-kosher food even if necessary to save their life. If a pre-embryo is not covered by the Biblical commandment of "thou shall not murder," then we might allow destroying a pre-embryo for its stem cells if it would save the life of an already born person. We are left with the question of whether research is considered the saving of a life. This argument becomes even more appealing if concrete life-saving medical treatments can be demonstrated.

For these as well as many other reasons, many contemporary halachic decisors have ruled that the destruction of preexisting pre-embryos for stem cell research is permitted (see my more extensive article on stem cell research and Jewish Law at: http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/stemcellres.html)

CHEAPENING THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE

Nevertheless, many Rabbis oppose the deliberate creation of pre-embryos for the purpose of their destruction, as this would cheapen the value of human life.

The halachic process offers fascinating insight into all areas of ethics, including biomedical ethics. It gives us the opportunity to evaluate the explosion of technology that surrounds us through the lens of the Torah, insuring that we remain the masters of our science and not vice versa. Judaism has no issue with technology. It only requires the ethical and responsible use of science to better our lives. Let us pray that tomorrow, our patient with liver failure will be cured.

[MarkC]

IMO it's unethical not to do stem cell research.

[SaulChanukah]

IMO it's unethical not to do stem cell research.

Things are not as simple as you want them to be, Marc.

[MarkC]

(If I weren't a nice guy, I'd be offended by his insinuation that I was being simple.)

[SaulChanukah]

(If I weren't a nice guy, I'd be offended by his insinuation that I was being simple.)

Some things are simple , yet some are not.

[MarkC]

So?

[SaulChanukah]

So all the aspects of a given issue should be carefully considered and weighted and then decided.

This is not a matter of opinion but of actually knowing the basics of Law and Morality and then thoughtfully applying them on the matter discussed.

That is why I personally don't have any 'opinion' about this matter and I'm only listening to those who actually know and have the authority to decide on this issue.

[MarkC]

.....That is why I personally don't have any 'opinion' about this matter and I'm only listening to those who actually know and have the authority to decide on this issue.

EXCELLENT.
Well, I know and I'm telling you that it's unethical not to do stem cell research.

Whether I shall have authority to decide, only the future will tell.

[living_stradivarius]

Whether I shall have authority to decide, only the future will tell.

You plan to oust the Pope?

[MarkC]

^^ heh heh ^^

I'm sometimes/often told of the resemblance, especially from behind.

(I try to show my front as much as possible.)

[Ralph]

IMO it's unethical not to do stem cell research.

*****

Amen!

[SaulChanukah]

IMO it's unethical not to do stem cell research.

*****

Amen!

Is this the 'Rabbi' in you, Ralphy Ralph...?

[Agnes Selby]

IMO it's unethical not to do stem cell research.

*****

Amen!

Is this the 'Rabbi' in you, Ralphy Ralph...?

Hellooooo! Are we in the backwoods of Russia? Ralph is your senior
and a university professor. What are you? Have you no manners at all?
You seem to enjoy being a perfect boor.

-----------------

[Jean]

IMO it's unethical not to do stem cell research.

*****

Amen!

Is this the 'Rabbi' in you, Ralphy Ralph...?

Hellooooo! Are we in the backwoods of Russia? Ralph is your senior
and a university professor. What are you? Have you no manners at all?
You seem to enjoy being a perfect boor.

-----------------

Oh Agnes, I almost always agree with you...but on this I am a little uncomfortable. Everyone deserves respect, until they demostrate they do not. And while I have the utmost respect for Ralph and his position, opinions, and intellect, for more reasons then you could possibly know... I do not feel that anyone should be admonished for a response purely based on the other person's seniority and credentials. Especially in the context of an online forum. Which is not to say that a person should not be admonished for saying something dopey.

[Agnes Selby]

IMO it's unethical not to do stem cell research.

*****

Amen!

Is this the 'Rabbi' in you, Ralphy Ralph...?

Hellooooo! Are we in the backwoods of Russia? Ralph is your senior
and a university professor. What are you? Have you no manners at all?
You seem to enjoy being a perfect boor.

-----------------

Oh Agnes, I almost always agree with you...but on this I am a little uncomfortable. Everyone deserves respect, until they demostrate they do not. And while I have the utmost respect for Ralph and his position, opinions, and intellect, for more reasons then you could possibly know... I do not feel that anyone should be admonished for a response purely based on the other person's seniority and credentials. Especially in the context of an online forum. Which is not to say that a person should not be admonished for saying something dopey.

Jean, had you been on this forum as long as I have
and were subjected to all the nonsense and rudeness this 34 year old man dishes
out, you too would lose your patience. I am sorry, but Ralph has seniority and
accomplishments and deserves respect. I have seniority and accomplishments
and so do other members on this board and most of us have been
insulted in the rudest possible manner on many occasions. Someone has to
put a stop to this man's perversion to use this board as a personal vehicle
for rudeness.

If you enjoy reading his nonsense, so be it but please do not insult me
with your criticism.

[Teresa B]

If someone has a moral objection to stem cell research, then that person may refuse any beneficial treatment that might be available to him/her as a result of stem cell research.

Anyone who is not compelled to cleave to the notion that a cell, although it may have theoretical potential to become a human being, is sacrosanct, can see the possible benefits of the research to various neurological and other diseases.

It would be excellent if non-embryonic stem cells can be prodded into the degree of pluripotentiality required to cure some diseases, but this remains to be seen yet. Perhaps the "synthetic" genomes recently produced may also contribute to a future non-necessity of stem cells, but until then, I'm with those who say, it's immoral NOT to proceed with research.

Teresa

[SaulChanukah]

IMO it's unethical not to do stem cell research.

*****

Amen!

Is this the 'Rabbi' in you, Ralphy Ralph...?

Hellooooo! Are we in the backwoods of Russia? Ralph is your senior
and a university professor. What are you? Have you no manners at all?
You seem to enjoy being a perfect boor.

-----------------

Oh Agnes, I almost always agree with you...but on this I am a little uncomfortable. Everyone deserves respect, until they demostrate they do not. And while I have the utmost respect for Ralph and his position, opinions, and intellect, for more reasons then you could possibly know... I do not feel that anyone should be admonished for a response purely based on the other person's seniority and credentials. Especially in the context of an online forum. Which is not to say that a person should not be admonished for saying something dopey.

Jean, had you been on this forum as long as I have
and were subjected to all the nonsense and rudeness this 34 year old man dishes
out, you too would lose your patience. I am sorry, but Ralph has seniority and
accomplishments and deserves respect. I have seniority and accomplishments
and so do other members on this board and most of us have been
insulted in the rudest possible manner on many occasions. Someone has to
put a stop to this man's perversion to use this board as a personal vehicle
for rudeness.

If you enjoy reading his nonsense, so be it but please do not insult me
with your criticism.

33, at least get the age thing straight...

You take this out of proportion Agnes. I'm trying very hard to respond to you in a balanced way, and not get pulled down by you into another set of internet battles. I remember you told me that you put me on ignore, why did you not stick to your word?

If you don't like what I say, just ignore, I have no need to argue with you, and see no pleasure in calling you any names, so please stop.

As for Ralph, I have respect for him, I don't know why calling someone regardless of any age a 'Rabbi' in an amusing friendly manner should be considered an 'insult'.

But I guess you are looking for every excuse possible to upset me and draw me into a response that I don't desire.

So please move on.

[THEHORN]

The Catholic church and social conservatives are also adamantly opposed to using fetal cells. I fail to see why. How can using cells and then discarding them be considered murder? This makes absolutely no sense to me and many other people.
Also, those opposed to this kind of reasearch claim that there is no possibility of medical benefit from it.How do they know?
Catholics are even opposed to birth control pills because they allegedly "kill" a "baby". A cell,or a cou[le of them,are not a baby. Catholics call these pills "abortifacients". Ridiculous. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy when fetus is partially formed. No pill can cause an"abortion".
It's appalling how the obscurantist Bush administration stymied vital research for eight years. Good riddance.

[SaulChanukah]

The Catholic church and social conservatives are also adamantly opposed to using fetal cells. I fail to see why. How can using cells and then discarding them be considered murder? This makes absolutely no sense to me and many other people.
Also, those opposed to this kind of reasearch claim that there is no possibility of medical benefit from it.How do they know?
Catholics are even opposed to birth control pills because they allegedly "kill" a "baby". A cell,or a cou[le of them,are not a baby. Catholics call these pills "abortifacients". Ridiculous. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy when fetus is partially formed. No pill can cause an"abortion".
It's appalling how the obscurantist Bush administration stymied vital research for eight years. Good riddance.

Catholics don't know a thing about the Law, that's why they say on everything no no no.
Its easy to say no, it takes a scholar to permit, to know all the vast ocean of the Talmud and the law, all of its many chapters, and rules and many other details so that one can come to a conclusion based on real facts and knowledge, instead of ignorance.

Jewish Law says that its permitted for women to take birth control pills.

The stem cell research is still growing, and the Rabbis are considering all its angels and all its details, we just have to wait and see. The original article talked about this discussion, Judaism doesn’t reject these studies completely.

by Yoel Jakobovits

Torah.org

JEWISH LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

We begin the outline of the Jewish legal approach to stem cell research by stressing some general overarching principles. In contrast with other religions, Judaism has no problem with "playing God," provided we do so according to His rules as expressed by authentic Jewish legal mandate. Far from being shunned, "playing God" in the Jewish tradition is, in fact, a religious imperative: the concept of emulating God is implicit in the mandate to heal and provide effective medical relief wherever possible. Of note, the only two "professions" ascribed to God Himself are those of teaching and healing. By teaching and/or healing, we fulfill the obligation to "play God." There's no reason that microscopic manipulation of a faulty genetic blueprint should be any different than surgical manipulation of a defective macroscope -- that is, visible to the unaided eye -- tissue or organ. Normative Jewish law sanctions -- nay, encourages -- medical intervention to correct both congenital and acquired defects, and makes no distinction between stem and somatic (body) cell tissues.

The crucial distinction here is between the permissible act of correcting a defect and the forbidden act of attempting to improve on God's creations (generally proscribed by the laws of cross-breeding). For example, it would be permitted, were it possible, to correct the genetic defect which leads to Down's syndrome, but manipulating genes to produce a "perfect-bodied" six-footer with blue eyes would be prohibited.

There would, therefore, be no Jewish legal problem with using stem cells derived from adult tissue. Similarly, it would appear that using cells from umbilical cord tissue would be permissible. A rather minor concern here might be the following: May one have umbilical tissue collected and frozen so that the cells will be available in case one requires stem cell therapy sometime in the future? Is this degree of effort, in trying to ensure one's health, appropriate or excessive?

While there are few Jewish legal objections to deriving the stem cells from adult or umbilical cord tissue, the problems arise, however, with deriving stem cells from the embryonic tissue.

Post-implantation embryonic tissue (that is an embryo already implanted into the uterine wall) is after all, an early fetus; clearly no sanction would be given to aborting a fetus in order to obtain stem cell tissue. Even were fetal tissue necessary to provide life-sustaining therapy for a patient, no sanction would be given to sacrifice an innocent fetus even in the interest of saving another life. The only exception to this rule is the obligation to forfeit the life of the "non-innocent" fetus when its continued existence constitutes a danger to its mother by virtue of the fetus's pursuer ("rodef") status.

Even fetal life before the 40th day of gestation -- which is considered "mere water" -- could not be aborted in order to obtain stem cell tissue. Prior to 40 days, a miscarried fetus does not trigger birth-related purity issues, and therefore is of lesser status than a more mature fetus. (There is a large body of rabbinical writings regarding the 40-day status of a fetus.)...

TOWARD THE FUTURE

The prime source of embryonic stem cell tissue is embryos that have not been implanted into the uterine wall. As discussed above, they are usually the "by-products," spare embryos left aside during in vitro fertilization in order not to dangerously overload the mother's uterus. The Jewish legal status of these spare, non-implanted embryos is somewhat unclear. Some rabbinical opinions suggest that in addition to the 40-day milestone, an embryo doesn't reach fetal status until it is implanted into the uterus. Prior to that, while still in a petri dish, or other artificial medium, it cannot develop into a viable fetus. Therefore such early embryos have no real life potential at all and they're not considered alive. Consequently, there would be no Jewish legal opposition to disposing of them, researching on them, or deriving stem cell tissue from them.

The status of pre-implantation embryos has another potentially important Jewish legal consequence. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) offers a promising approach to prevent the birth of genetically defective children. By studying embryos before implantation into the uterus, it is possible to identify those defective genes. By selecting only genetically intact embryos for implantation, the development of genetically defective fetuses would be avoided. Assuming the pre-implanted embryo has not reached the level of a fetus, Jewish legal sanction may be possible.

The ethical issues raised by stem cell research and therapy are, of course, not only of interest to Jews. In an unprecedented national broadcast, President Bush defined some fairly restrictive regulations. Just recently the administration argued strongly in favor of banning all research into human cloning. Evidently the crossroads of medical science and the generation of life itself raises fears and genuine concern in the minds of many thinking people.

It appears that Jewish legal concerns may be more permissive than is generally understood. Clearly, it behooves us, as Jews, to avail ourselves of whatever Torah and scientific knowledge we can -- not only as we try to find the Jewish legal guidance for ourselves, but perhaps equally importantly -- as we strive to fulfill our national mandate to be a Light Unto the Nations -- to help shed light on these vexing issues for society at large.

[MarkC]

......Also, those opposed to this kind of reasearch claim that there is no possibility of medical benefit from it. How do they know?.....

Speaking as someone on your side, I've never heard any of them be that brazen. Maybe I've been fortunate not to hear from any of the more brazen among them.

What I've heard is more along the lines of, "There won't necessarily be any medical benefit that soon."

To which the answer is: Yes, but there might be......and even if not, you mean you don't care about ever?

[Jean]

IMO it's unethical not to do stem cell research.

*****

Amen!

Is this the 'Rabbi' in you, Ralphy Ralph...?

Hellooooo! Are we in the backwoods of Russia? Ralph is your senior
and a university professor. What are you? Have you no manners at all?
You seem to enjoy being a perfect boor.

-----------------

Oh Agnes, I almost always agree with you...but on this I am a little uncomfortable. Everyone deserves respect, until they demostrate they do not. And while I have the utmost respect for Ralph and his position, opinions, and intellect, for more reasons then you could possibly know... I do not feel that anyone should be admonished for a response purely based on the other person's seniority and credentials. Especially in the context of an online forum. Which is not to say that a person should not be admonished for saying something dopey.

Jean, had you been on this forum as long as I have
and were subjected to all the nonsense and rudeness this 34 year old man dishes
out, you too would lose your patience. I am sorry, but Ralph has seniority and
accomplishments and deserves respect. I have seniority and accomplishments
and so do other members on this board and most of us have been
insulted in the rudest possible manner on many occasions. Someone has to
put a stop to this man's perversion to use this board as a personal vehicle
for rudeness.

If you enjoy reading his nonsense, so be it but please do not insult me
with your criticism.

Agnes,

I certainly was not my intent to insult you and fankly I don't see what I said that offended you. However, I do apologize if you feel offended.

I've read plenty of Saul's stuff and have replied on more than a few occassions. I also have been personally offended since I am of German descent and still have the bulk of my family living in Germany, and the fact that when I disagree with him he implies or outright states that since I disagree I couldn't possibly have had the smarts to understand his point.

I just don't think that it's right to pull the "age" and "credentials" cards. Frankly I have plenty of years, real life experience, and credentials to point to...but I certainly wouldn't want to be treated differently because of them.

Again, my apologies for offending unintentionally.

Audrey

[MarkC]

Jean -- I don't see that you said anything offensive either.

I guess it's just that with things like this, stuff can be taken in any which way.....

[living_stradivarius]

Jean -- I don't see that you said anything offensive either.

I guess it's just that with things like this, stuff can be taken in any which way.....

I know right? Like "Ralphy Ralph" can be interpreted as a come-on...

[SaulChanukah]

Jean -- I don't see that you said anything offensive either.

I guess it's just that with things like this, stuff can be taken in any which way.....

I know right? Like "Ralphy Ralph" can be interpreted as a come-on...

Yes, Ralphy Ralph actually means come-on if you look in the dictionary...

Its much like Franky Frank and Albert Al and Robert Bob and Charlie Charles...

[Agnes Selby]

Jean -- I don't see that you said anything offensive either.

I guess it's just that with things like this, stuff can be taken in any which way.....

I know right? Like "Ralphy Ralph" can be interpreted as a come-on...

Yes, Ralphy Ralph actually means come-on if you look in the dictionary...

Its much like Franky Frank and Albert Al and Robert Bob and Charlie Charles...

You are the only one laughing.

[SaulChanukah]

Jean -- I don't see that you said anything offensive either.

I guess it's just that with things like this, stuff can be taken in any which way.....

I know right? Like "Ralphy Ralph" can be interpreted as a come-on...

Yes, Ralphy Ralph actually means come-on if you look in the dictionary...

Its much like Franky Frank and Albert Al and Robert Bob and Charlie Charles...

You are the only one laughing.

I didnt know that you had that power, Agnes.

To know who laughs and who doesnt laugh.

A special talent indeed that deserves world attention!



Watch out Uri Geller...

[Agnes Selby]

The only person seeking attention is you, Saul.

But I have a suggestion for you. Stick to your rabbinical
posts that no one reads and come back to scientific posts
when you pass 6th grade.A 5th grade pass will never cut it.

[SaulChanukah]

The only person seeking attention is you, Saul.

But I have a suggestion for you. Stick to your rabbinical
posts that no one reads and come back to scientific posts
when you pass 6th grade.A 5th grade pass will never cut it.

Let me see...

You know who laughs and who doesn’t...

You also know who reads the posts and who doesn’t...

What else do you know?

Lottery Numbers could be very helpful...

You can send them to a different member every week, and we all become rich...

I know you wouldn’t mind that...