2

To what age of embryo (if at all) it would be considered socially/morally acceptable to use embryo as stem cell source to potentially save someone's live?
EDIT: I would like an answer to give perspective of using embryos from different frameworks like utilitarian and Kantian and others that could sensibly be applied.

Matas Vaitkevicius
  • 1,371
  • 1
  • 18
  • 34
  • Subjective. What does "morally" mean? – iphigenie May 08 '14 at 08:29
  • @iphigenie edited question, you are right moral was incorrect term to use. – Matas Vaitkevicius May 08 '14 at 08:33
  • 1
    Still subjective. There's an ongoing debate about that, so there's definitely not *one* answer to this. – iphigenie May 08 '14 at 08:54
  • You were right to use the term "morally acceptable" not "socially acceptable". Morality is objective, see http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/10398/is-ethics-anthropocentric/10439#10439. – alanf May 08 '14 at 08:54
  • @alanf edited again, I would prefer not to go into semantic argument. – Matas Vaitkevicius May 08 '14 at 08:59
  • 3
    can you give us a framework or something? Right now, it's basically a wide open question capable only either of an answer covering many or all theories or merely subjective answers. I don't have the patience to write the former on this one nor the will to join the latter. – virmaior May 08 '14 at 09:03
  • @virmaior could you give me an example of framework you are looking for? and for what purpose it will be used? I will do my best to put that into question. Please do not take offence I have only joined today while you have been around for 3 months. – Matas Vaitkevicius May 08 '14 at 09:09
  • LIUFA - What one person considers morally acceptable will differ from the next - and things do not get much prettier in a 'social' context. Also your question appears to presume that there is an age when it would be considered acceptable to use embryo stem cells in medicine to save lives. – Avestron May 08 '14 at 09:19
  • @Avestron I tried to do my best to not impose any opinion. My personal opinion is that before nervous system starts developing there is no human, but this is totally subjective. – Matas Vaitkevicius May 08 '14 at 09:25
  • 2
    What I mean is add something like "from a utilitarian framework" or "from a Kantian framework" or "if you believe life is sacred." Give us some guidelines here as to what you mean by morality. – virmaior May 08 '14 at 09:41
  • 1
    @virmaior that is exactly type of answer I am looking for. It would give pespective of using embryos that would be seen from utilitarian and Kantian other frameworks that sensibly could be applied, I do understand it is broad, But other option would be asking many versions of same question, which I don't mind if you think I should do so. – Matas Vaitkevicius May 08 '14 at 09:49
  • @LIUFA I had a feeling that this is what you were aiming for - my own view is that there 'is' a human - but 'no' person, individual or sentience - but there are those who could argue that there exists life even at the pre-implantation stage - even the pre-insemination stage... but then comes the argument as to whether non-sentient life is so sacred that it is to be preserved regardless of the benefits (and if this is so - how might such apply to non-human life?). Social acceptability can differ greatly on the basis of belief system and culture (think cows in India). – Avestron May 08 '14 at 09:51

2 Answers2

5

Embryos are a stage in development of human organisms.

To phrase the issue concisely: If something is X at the end of a time interval, then either it must become X during that interval, or else it must have been X from the start.

Therefore, becoming X requires a distinct change - "person" is a binary distinction. There are no "half-person" or "3/7ths person" as valid options.

But physiologically, genetically, biochemically, anatomically - all development is gradual. (Look at the above link and see how slowly we change - and remember that these are a small number of stop-motion frames over 9 months of gradual development in gestation.)

After the formation of the zygote, there are strong scientific arguments that no single defining moment of change in the development from zygote through adult senescence is significant enough of a change to demarcate a change in status to toggle from "not a human life" to "human life." Nor from "not a person" to "is a person."

(Even birth is a process of several hours to several days, and a journey of almost 2 feet. At what moment is it a human life or a person? Out with cord cut? Without it cut? Only head out? Cervix dilated?)

Cognition is also a very gradual development that can vary widely between individuals. Discussions on this have very diverse opinions.

I argue that if one cannot define criteria for a toggle point, there cannot be a solid argument for any point. Therefore, if no toggle point can be established, it defaults to the beginning of the line - the first point of formation of that particular human organism.

Otherwise we are stuck in vagueness, ambiguity -- but this is a situation where there absolutely must be a definition; lacking a clear definition of "life" or "person" results in dangerous inconsistencies in discussions on policy, bioethics, and legality.

DoctorWhom
  • 393
  • 1
  • 6
  • Thank you kindly for provision of a source and an informed perspective on the matter. With regards your second-to-final paragraph - while the point at which the vessel may be referred to as a human is unfeasible to argue (beyond insemination as a starting point, perhaps), the same is likely not so for definition of person - if one were to accept that the brain is the seat of reason, personality and will (even the most fundamental will to 'be') then a lot of moral questions (contraception, morning-after pill, stem cell harvesting, etc.) would allow for greater flexibility. – Avestron May 08 '14 at 12:54
  • A stew takes several hours to make. At the beginning, it is raw, at the end it is cooked. There is no clear transition from "raw" to "cooked", ergo it must be cooked from the beginning. – Davidmh May 08 '14 at 14:42
  • Stew is not binary. Stew can be half-cooked, and is stew whether it is 15% or 94% cooked. When you eat depends on how soft you like your food. How do you want your steak? Rare? Medium well? – DoctorWhom May 08 '14 at 19:11
  • 1
    @Avestron, Basing the definition of a human being on what is convenient is illogical and unethical. It is inconvenient that the elderly (many with limited cognition due to Alzheimer's and dementia) consume most health care costs in the last years. Should they not be people then, so we can save costs? Then we could adopt euthanasia without consent, based upon whether their children are tired of caring for them and can't afford a nursing home. Using that as a definition would be convenient for some - but certainly not ethical, nor logical. Even then, when do we turn the "person" switch off? – DoctorWhom May 08 '14 at 19:19
  • 1
    Infanticide is almost universally illegal. An infant born at 6 months, killed by its mother 2 months later because she couldn't afford to take care of it: murder. A term infant conceived on the same day, killed on the same day for the same reason, is still in utero: late term abortion. Both are 8 months gestation, identical developmental age. So why? Not birth (see answer). The mother's will? This is definition based upon convenience, regardless of how tragic the circumstances. Defining "person" for a member of our species based upon what someone *else* currently "wills" is illogical. – DoctorWhom May 08 '14 at 19:48
  • 1
    For society to define "person" for a member of our species based upon what *someone else* currently "wills" is scientifically and morally illogical. It is a way to justify what we feel should be done without calling it what it is. Regardless of what society chooses, we need to at least be honest with ourselves, rather than softening reality with convenient definitions. – DoctorWhom May 08 '14 at 19:59
  • @Doctor Whom - Perhaps speaking of the conveniences of an interpretation was ill-timed. It is to be agreed that interpretation on the basis that such would be convenient can entail a questionable ethos. However, independently of convenience or not - is it intrinsically unethical to seek an objective definition as to where a human being might actually start being a person? – Avestron May 09 '14 at 07:54
  • And even if such were to be considered unethical - would it be truly *subjective* to suggest that the 'person' may begin at that point when the human body has the presence of cells that permit the body to be capable of the most fundamental of thoughts, capable of experiencing (the absence of a nervous system and a brain being absent to experience feelings or thoughts or anything between or beyond). Is not comparison between a baby, a late-term fetus and a pre-brain embryo with the clear assumption that all three involve the same ethical weight (of murder) not a block to objective discourse? – Avestron May 09 '14 at 08:09
  • Discussion should happen, but not using ambiguous or inappropriate terminology. Society needs to be honest with itself and call it what it is, not morph definitions to fit how we want to feel about it. Then society can have real conversations, rather than using controversial terminology. "What do we use as criteria for ending a person's life?" "When is a person self-aware enough to give consent for X? Y? Z?" "Under what criteria can a female choose to end the life of her child?" These can be debated. These are real questions. We have to make real decisions - but we're afraid of reality. – DoctorWhom May 09 '14 at 08:19
  • We try to shield ourselves by choosing definitions to justify what we want to do, so we don't feel bad making those decisions. That's not science nor philosophy, it's avoidance. Mass cognitive dissonance. Even if we try to pick a spot to assign a criteria for "person," it will not fit all issues. That is why we must choose correct terminology. Then each issue needs to be addressed and debated independently for its own criteria - but discussed as what it really is. – DoctorWhom May 09 '14 at 08:28
  • To debate independently the question's issue about the morality of harvesting embryos to use their cells: by the argument I laid out (that if it is X at the end, if there is no significant switch, then it must be X from the start), there is not a good criteria for terminating another human's life at any developmental stage to use its cells. But the issue is nearly outdated. Pluripotent stem cells are being generated from other sources, and it will soon *replace* the use of embryo tissues. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/01/researchers-create-embryonic-stem-cells-without-embryo/ – DoctorWhom May 09 '14 at 09:29
  • @Doctor Whom - Terminology ill-defined within the context of a human life. I had extrapolated my views on the embryo from practices of defining when a person has passed away. Having thought about the significance of pulling the plug on a person on life support declared to be brain dead (no activity - I am aware that the brain shuts down in stages & that structure degrades rapidly but a few minutes following the process - seemingly irreversibly destroyed). That & the pressure that women (pregnant of all circumstances) undergo to keep the baby & how the rights of mother & would-be child stack up – Avestron May 09 '14 at 15:49
  • Of course the rights of a would-be mother and would-be child have nothing to do with this subject matter - just mentioning it in passing. Coming back to the commentary - one might argue that there is a point where cells related to the brain and nervous system come into being - a situation where there is a 'before existence' and after existence'. I however once again thank you for the engaging discussion on the matter. Again, very informative (and good to hear that other, perhaps more ethical, sources for stem cells are being explored). – Avestron May 09 '14 at 15:56
0

This would require an answer to the question of why people have rights and what sorts of other things should have right, if any. The reason people have rights is that having such standards makes it easier for people to do interesting stuff and to cooperate with one another, as I will now illustrate. So if we still had slavery then the people in the group who could be enslaved would have a hard time cooperating with anybody else because they might be enslaved at any time and be unable to follow through on their own plans. And people who wanted to cooperate with those in the enslaved group would have the problem that their partner could be enslaved and so would be unable to cooperate with them. The slavemasters would have the problem that if they are doing something stupid or bad their slaves can't leave which would indicate that he is doing something wrong.

Embryos that don't have brains can't think and so can't offer improvements and shouldn't have rights. At some time between the development of the brain and when the child starts speaking, he starts creating knowledge (at a minimum the knowledge required to speak and acquire vocabulary). When the embryo crosses that line they should have rights and not before. Until they cross that line it is okay to take issue from them, after that line you should get their consent. My understanding is that embryos don't have the equipment required to create new knowledge until some time after 20 weeks or later. I doubt that any of the embryo tissue currently available comes from embryos that can come up with new ideas.

alanf
  • 7,275
  • 12
  • 18
  • Incidentally the brain cells and nervous system start to form in an embryo approximately 17 days into a pregnancy... I lost the source however. – Avestron May 08 '14 at 09:22
  • 2
    This answer is phrased as a strongly subjective opinion, and it is difficult to follow. There are bold statements of "should" using terms like "do interesting stuff and cooperate with each other" as reasons for personhood, and "can't offer improvements" as reason for denying personhood, without supporting information. Also, you make scientific claims without providing sources to back it up. Avestron is right - the neural tube begins before 3 weeks, not 20. By 20 *days* you can clearly see all 3 sections of the brain. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8005032 – DoctorWhom May 08 '14 at 12:17
  • 2
    Also, developmentally, a speaking infant cannot give informed consent for taking its life. I could argue based upon developmental psychology that you cannot obtain truly informed consent for that until minimally late teen years. This article discusses adults in situations where obtaining consent may not be ethical due to impairments in capacity. Capacity to consent can not be a logical criteria in personhood, or all these become non-persons. http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/policy/questionablecapacity.htm – DoctorWhom May 08 '14 at 12:28
  • @DoctorWhom "The neural groove and folds are first seen during stage 8 (about 18 postovulatory days)" would it be safe to say that before 2.5 weeks embryo does not have nervous system - cannot 'feel'. – Matas Vaitkevicius May 08 '14 at 22:25
  • Define "feel." Sensation? Pain? Awareness? Reaction? "Feel" is a poor criterion for defining anything, let alone personhood. If the question is just "does it feel in the same way you or I feel?" then of course not - but neither does an infant, a paraplegic, nor you on morphine. Does a 2 week embryo have nociceptors? Not yet, but there are also adults without functioning nociceptors, whose neurology is incapable of perceiving pain. Their capacity to feel is different, so if capacity to feel the way you feel is the criterion for being a person, are they people? Partial people? – DoctorWhom May 09 '14 at 00:42
  • There are different ways organisms and cells sense things, regardless of awareness/consciousness. An embryo's cells have strong physiological reactions to noxious stimuli, e.g. acid. My cells react to acid the same way. In addition, I may become aware of it if near a nerve ending, if I am awake. If the nerve is a nociceptor, and above threshold, my mind might also translate it as pain - but acid is harming my cells, whether or not I feel it, or am conscious to interpret it. – DoctorWhom May 09 '14 at 01:05
  • @Doctor Whom - Both comments put beyond question your superior proficiency in the medical field. However - the existence of cells does not in itself constitute a person - every time a person bleeds or scrapes himself accidentally there are cells left behind - they are, at the time of separation, alive. Yet they are not persons. Likewise while morphine may reduce or deaden the sensitivity of myself to sensations such as pain, its presence does not change the fact that my nociceptors (not of the medical profession - but trusting your choice of word) exist & are in place. Hence I remain a person. – Avestron May 09 '14 at 08:18
  • On the other hand a pre-brain/ nervous system embryo has the **potential** to become a person. Then again so does an ovary produced egg and sperm have the potential to become a person - does that mean that we are morally obliged to reproduce at every given moment (I'd argue not)? The cells of a pre-brain embryo are certainly alive and consist of cells far more versatile than anything that may be extracted from the adult body - but in the absence of anything similar to a brain or nervous system - whether this constitutes a person relies heavily on how low we set the bar for *person-hood*. – Avestron May 09 '14 at 08:33
  • @A Concepts seem to be mixing up in your answers. I'll try to sort them out. You say that the presence of pain receptors (nociceptors) define person... so then are adults without pain receptors non-persons? You also misinterpreted the cells concept. (It's that all stages of human development have cells, even cells react to stimuli, so defining "feel" as "reaction" is not an accurate criteria either.) – DoctorWhom May 09 '14 at 09:06
  • @A I think one confusion is your use of "person." The word doesn't work well. I recommend you approach it by removing "person" from your discussion entirely. Discuss the issue directly, using terminology of the human developmental stage or attributes - making sure they're appropriate to the issue - so that you don't mix interpretations. I disagree with a number of points, but you also make good points; however, the inconsistencies make it hard to follow. I think that will help clarify your presentation. – DoctorWhom May 09 '14 at 09:12
  • @DoctorWhom: You say that I don't explain my position that you shouldn't give rights to things unless they are capable of doing interesting stuff but that I haven't supported this. If another being is not capable of doing anything interesting that might change my mind about something what difference would it make if I give it rights? I would be wasting my time and effort by changing my behaviour for no benefit. – alanf May 09 '14 at 09:23
  • @DoctorWhom: Before about 24 weeks, the parts of the brain that instantiate thought aren't wired up to the parts that respond to stuff that would cause pain in adults: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201429 Sensations aren't good or bad or welcome or unwelcome except in the light of an interpretation of those sensations, i.e. - without thought they don't matter morally. – alanf May 09 '14 at 09:28
  • By saying your last sentence, you are saying "It's okay to end a human's life if they don't feel pain when we kill them, because a human is only a person if they are capable of being aware of pain received?" That certainly is *a* position, and using that position would certainly make me feel better if I wanted to terminate a life that fit that criteria, but I can't decide morality based upon what I want. I have read that article before as well as others. There are many unknowns, and I am still not satisfied with that as criteria. – DoctorWhom May 09 '14 at 10:02
  • @DoctorWhom "It's okay to end a human's life if they don't feel pain when we kill them, because a human is only a person if they are capable of being aware of pain received?" No. A foetus doesn't matter before 24 weeks because he's not able to interpret pain or any other sensation. So there is no way of dealing with him for mutual benefit. I said _the pain_ doesn't matter morally. Even if signals are produced in some part of the body that would produce pain in a person that doesn't matter because the relevant signals aren't processed as they would be in a person – alanf May 09 '14 at 12:22
  • @Doctor Whom - In truth if I were to place priority between the brain & the nervous system (part of which would be the pain receptors) then I would place the brain first because without a brain the pain receptors are of less consequence (in the same way that a damaged or sedated nervous system can block or fail to deliver signals to the brain from some body location). However the presence of a nervous system would indicate a capacity to 'feel' pain (This is a case of 'when in doubt - play it safe' & it is fortunate that they both start circa day 17). Cells themselves react to stimuli - agreed. – Avestron May 09 '14 at 15:35
  • Incidentally I shall accept that my use of the word 'person' may be inaccurate and therefore detracting from the discussion. I do however feel that the building blocks of identity - the status of being on more than just the physical level are there to be pin-pointed and discovered even if I may be inaccurate in description. Thank you for the discussion on the matter - I have learnt from it. – Avestron May 09 '14 at 15:39