The Anglican Church in Tasmania                                                             Search
	a healthy church...transformingLIFE
	Home      About      Contact us      News      Issues      Parishes      Prayer      Calendar      Youth      Resources

Stem Cells: an Anglican Evaluation by Dr Christopher Newell, AM Recently our TV screens were bombarded with images of the broken Superman, Christopher Reeve, crying out, 'I want to walk again'. Australians were assured that embryonic stem cells could deliver this. It was all so simple. In February 1997 came the news that scientists in Edinburgh, Scotland had created 'Dolly' the sheep, by the technique of somatic cell nuclear transfer, or cloning. Since then, legislators and ethicists worldwide have struggled with an appropriate response to this new biotechnology. The question At the forefront of these debates is the use of the two types of human stem cells: embryonic and adult. Scientists are certain that adult stem cells hold great promise for the repair of human disease. This is largely uncontroversial. On the other hand, the proposed use of human embryonic stem cells has caused great controversy. Such research involves harvesting these stem cells for experimentation; it causes the destruction of the embryo. The question of whether or not embryonic stem cells could be used was the focus of the recent COAG decision. The Prime Minister and State Premiers endorsed uniform legislation regarding cloning and the use of stem cells. They condemned the cloning of human beings and sanctioned stem cell research on approximately 70 000 unused IVF embryos stored around Australia. The Anglican response There was division in Anglican circles. The Primate, Archbishop Peter Carnley, using 14 - day post-fertilisation criteria, suggested that embryos up to this stage could be used. The Archbishop of Sydney, Archbishop Peter Jensen, advised against the use of embryonic stem cells, pointing to the utilitarian nature of what was occurring, and saying that we should not do wrong, in order that good may result. While there is no one Anglican stance regarding the status of the embryo, most Anglican sources affirm the importance of treating the embryo with respect. Personhood The Anglican response mirrors the wider secular response. It is at the beginning and end of life that the ethics of personhood are most contested. Some view embryonic stem cells as just a lump of cells, and a means to an end. Embryonic research, which is inevitably destructive, is hardly problematic from this perspective. Others view embryonic stem cells as more than mere human tissue. For some of us the embryo commands deep respect, something akin to the way in which we transcend religious and philosophical differences in treating the body with respect when a person has recently died. The promise The dilemma of the stem-cell debate lies in the belief that the cure for disability is just around the corner. Seven years after his horse-riding accident, it is doubtful that Reeve's scarred spinal cord can be repaired to enable him to walk. The promise of stem cell research lies in treatment soon after an accident. While we may hope for cures for Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease, such treatments remain speculative, and we should not raise hopes prematurely. Scientists such as Sir Gustav Nossal suggest that many more years of animal research would be needed. I am supportive of investing in adult stem cell research, but in the context of adequately addressing a variety of other disability needs which are currently under-funded. Virtuous or utilitarian Anglicans need to be united in questioning the utilitarian agenda, and the deep-seated vested interests this debate has revealed. We need science policy informed by the notion of the common good, and social policy with more than consequentialism as its guiding light. In this way we could reclaim a vision of a virtuous science policy. Likewise we can encourage public involvement in a debate which has largely left people confused and somewhat fearful. Vision Rather than being anti-science, we need to embrace the use of the God-given promise of science, within certain limits. This will require dialogue, rather than economic and technological determinism. Thus we may achieve a vision of science as an integral part of the civil society which embraces all. The Revd Dr Christopher Newell, AM was a consultant ethicist, Senior Lecturer in Medical Ethics at the University of Tasmania, and Assistant Priest at Saint David's Cathedral, Hobart.

This article was first published in the Tasmanian Anglican, May 2002