Sacred body? Stem cell research and human cloning

Ecumenical Review, The, July, 2002 by Heinrich Bedford-Strohm

There is one church in Europe, however, which takes a different stand on this issue. The Church of Scotland, which we have already mentioned for its clear condemnation of reproductive cloning, issued a statement at its 2001 general assembly in which it opposed the use of embryos from artificial insemination procedures for any other purpose than for human reproduction research, but declared "that human embryos created by cell nuclear transfer [that is to say, for therapeutic cloning] may be used in medical research and therapy, subject to the 14-day limit".

Insofar as God--argued the Scottish church--created human embryos for the end of human reproduction, such embryos, within the 14-day period, should only be used for research serving human reproduction. But since embryos created by therapeutic cloning have never served the end of reproduction, they can be used for medical research and the production of embryonic stem cells.

This controversial position makes it all the more necessary to look more thoroughly at the ethical questions which underlie the debate on the application of biotechnological possibilities.

The fundamental importance of human dignity

It has often been affirmed that it is pointless to invoke the principle of human dignity in the bio-ethical debate because this principle is as uncontroversial as it is empty. There are, however, good reasons to disagree with this assessment. This becomes clear if we look at the German philosopher Immanuel Kant's classical definition of human dignity: reasonable beings all have the obligation to see and treat each other never only as a means to another end, but always as an end in itself. If human life at its beginning is seen as subject to the principle of human dignity, then it is hard not to see the tension between this ethical principle and the practice of embryonic stem cell research or, even more so, of therapeutic cloning. To gain human embryonic stem cells, the embryo has to be sacrificed. It has to die for the good end of developing therapies for people who otherwise have to suffer--but it is still not being treated as an end in itself, but as a means to another end. This is even more true for therapeutic cloning, where embryos are called into existence for no other reason than to be sacrificed for other ends. The argument of the Scottish church is not convincing, because the fact that human life has been called into existence by human action solely for the purpose of generating stem cells does not justify depriving this life of its God-given dignity.

The closeness of Kant's philosophical argument to biblical thinking has often been shown. The biblical option for the poor, as well as the golden rule (Matt. 17:12) and the "love commandment" (John 13:34), can be understood as ethical barriers against the reduction of human beings to an instrument for someone else's ends. There is a distinctively theological argument which can further develop what is meant by the dignity of the human person. From a theological standpoint, this dignity is not based on the nature of humans as reasonable beings, as in Kant's thinking, but it is rooted in the relationship which God establishes with the human being. The biblical affirmation that humans are created in the image of God has often been understood as something which humans have to prove themselves "worthy" of. Sin was then understood, by some, as destroying the status of human beings as beings created in the image of God. This is why it is so important to affirm the emphasis of the New Testament on the unconditional acceptance of the sinner by God. The love of God, as Jesus describes it in the parable of the prodigal son, reaches beyond the empirical "worthiness" of God's creatures. Neither moral merit, nor physical ability, are the basis of God's relationship to human beings, but exclusively God's own love and joy in the face of life. Thus it is God who makes human beings an end in themselves and if human beings take the right to decide about the worthiness of human life, then they forget that life receives its dignity from God.