stem cell research

stem cell research. Based on recent breakthroughs in genetics, scientists see great potential for the use of human stem cells in the treatment of many medical conditions, ranging from Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases to diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and degenerative heart conditions. The pluripotent nature of these cells means that they can develop into any kind of bodily tissue. Given the emphasis that Buddhism places on the central virtues of knowledge (prajñā) and compassion (karuṇā), and its long tradition of practising medicine in the monasteries, the recent advances in scientific understanding and the prospect of the development of cures and treatments which alleviate human suffering are to be welcomed. At the same time, however, Buddhism places great importance on the principle of ahiṃsā, or non-harming, and therefore has grave reservations about any scientific technique or procedure that involves the destruction of life, whether human or animal. Such actions are prohibited by the First Precept (see pañca-śīla), which prohibits causing death or injury to living creatures.

Buddhism has no central authority competent to pronounce on ethical dilemmas, and different sects and groups will typically discuss and resolve such matters at a local level. In terms of general principles, however, it seems that in accordance with other world religions Buddhism would hold that: (a) there is no ethical problem in principle with the therapeutic use of adult stem cells; and (b) research which involves the intentional destruction of human life, such as harvesting embryonic stem cells from embryos, is morally impermissible. Buddhism teaches that individual human life begins at conception. By virtue of its distinctive belief in rebirth, moreover, it regards the new conceptus as the bearer of the karmic identify (see Karma) of a recently deceased individual, and therefore as entitled to the same moral respect as an adult human being. For this reason Buddhism sees the moral issues raised by stem cell research as not in principle different from those raised by IVF treatment where this involves the destruction of spare embryos, and a fortiori abortion. The above holds true regardless of the benevolent intentions of those conducting the research or the eventual good consequences that may flow from it. It follows that it would be immoral to use as a source of stem cells for research purposes either surplus unwanted or frozen embryos created for IVF treatment (whether or not these would eventually be destroyed in any case), or cloned human embryos (see cloning) specifically created for research purposes. Regarding the use of stem cells taken from aborted foetuses, there is scope for different views. Some would regard it as permissible, since in this case the central objection that a living being was harmed through the harvesting of the cells would not apply as the donor is already deceased. Where a legally valid consent has been obtained from the next of kin for the use of the cells the situation can be seen as analogous to the donation of cadaver organs for transplantation. The criterion here is similar to that employed by President Bush in his decision in 2001 to allow US government-sponsored research to utilize a list of 60 existing embryonic stem cell lines, but not to use or develop new ones. The alternative position takes a stricter view on the question of complicity and holds that the cells obtained through abortion would be tainted by the immorality of the abortion itself and should therefore not be used. The analogy of organ donation would be challenged by pointing out that in this case, unlike that of most cadaver transplants, the person providing the consent (usually the mother) will be the same person who has direct responsibility for the death of the donor. A closer analogy, it might be suggested, is with using money stolen in a bank robbery for charitable purposes, something which would still be wrong regardless of the good achieved. There is thus scope for legitimate disagreement on this particular point, although perhaps the majority of Buddhists would incline towards the former position.