What does the current debate over stem cells have to do with the concentration camps at places like Auschwitz and Dachau? More than you might think.
When Allied troops liberated the few remaining prisoners of the Nazi concentration camps, they made some horrific discoveries. Among the records that survived of the gassings, burnings and shootings of millions of ‘undesirables,’ were graphic descriptions of extreme medical experiments carried out on live human subjects. To determine the extent to which individuals could withstand the effects of such things as hypothermia or a plague, the prisoners were dipped in ice water or deliberately infected, until they died.
The use of these human “guinea pigs” would be justified by a utilitarian argument: sacrifice the few to save the many. These wretched Jews, Gypsies and others would be sacrificed so that the German army could develop better medicine, life-saving equipment, etc. to preserve the lives of the soldiers of the master race. The current argument in support of the use of embryos, the least-developed of humans, in scientific research that is hoping to find cures for various diseases, closely parallels the Nazi justification. The lives of these microscopic humans should be sacrificed, say the utilitarians, so that we can find a cure for various human diseases.
Human embryos are perhaps the most magnificent things in all creation. An embryo, though so small she is invisible to the eye, contains all the necessary genetic information and material (other than food, water and air) to develop into an adult human over the course of several years. Scientists, understandably, want to learn everything they can about human development, and some believe that in studying the earliest stages of development, they may unlock incredible secrets about diseases and cures, and perhaps even the mystery of life itself.
In just the past few years, medicine has learned that it is possible to isolate stem cells, which are the all-important “factories” that produce the 200 different types of tissue in the human body, such as skin tissue or nerve tissue. Stem cells, once isolated, can be stimulated to grow new tissue to replace damaged or diseased tissue. The potential to fully cure such ailments as heart disease, blindness and diabetes may be the result of stem cell research.
Unfortunately, media disinformation has contributed to a false understanding of stem cell research on the part of the general public. We have been led to believe that embryos are the sole source of stem cells and therefore must decide whether to sacrifice a few nameless, faceless, embryonic humans, to find cures to help millions of adults with various sicknesses. It is certainly true that embryonic stem cells are technically easy to isolate and also have superior abilities to produce a wide range of tissues. However, it is also true that to isolate the stem cells from an embryo, one must destroy the embryo in the process.
The good news is that the media are wrong about embryos being the best or only source of stem cells. In fact, the best source of stem cells for medical treatment is one’s own body. Researchers are learning how to isolate stem cells in adults for re-implantation in areas of the body that have been damaged. For instance, in one successful French experiment, doctors isolated stem cells from various muscles in a patient with heart disease. The stem cells were then transferred to the damaged area of the heart and, incredibly, grew new tissue to replace the damaged tissue. While the technology can only be said to be in its infancy it holds great promise for the future.
Stem cells drawn from one’s own body carry several advantages for medical treatment over stem cells drawn from embryos. Because all humans are genetically distinct, the tissues that embryonic stem cells produce will be treated as foreign by our own bodies. Therefore, any treatment drawn from embryonic stem cell research will always create problems for the recipient of the treatment. Among these are: the possibility the patient’s body will reject the tissues; the need to take dangerous anti-rejection drugs for the rest of one’s life; and the possibility that a genetic or viral disease will be transferred with the tissue. Treatment using stem cells from our own bodies will carry none of these risks.
Canadians were outraged to hear of the atrocities the Nazi doctors had committed. After Germany had surrendered, those who participated in such crimes were tried at Nuremberg by Allied judges.The judges laid out some basic rules in a code of medical ethics, not dissimilar to the ethics of Hypocrites, to gauge whether the experiments were moral or criminal. This code became known as the Nuremberg Code and the fundamental principle it promoted was, “Neither harm nor kill a human subject.”
The Judeo-Christian morality that Canadians and our allies imposed on Germany 50 years ago has borne fruit. The extreme elements in the Germanic culture are marginalized, and a new ethic promoting life and human dignity is the norm. In recent times, respect for the Nuremberg Code resulted in the 1990 passage of legislation that prohibits various scientific research activities involving what are commonly known as reproductive technologies. Among the prohibitions are any experimentation that will harm or destroy a human subject, specifically an embryo.
While Germans have clearly learned from the many lessons of their defeat in World War II, it is less clear that Canadians have remembered. The morality that we were once happy to impose on a defeated foe is strangely absent in Canadian law. In fact, there is no law whatsoever governing reproductive technologies.
A decade ago, the Canadian government appointed a royal Commission to examine the issues RTs raise. The commission published its report in 1993, but it would be 1996 before the Liberals introduced Bill C-47. The bill contained a simple list of scientific activities that would be prohibited, including reproductive cloning. While the bill did not address the complete range of issues that might arise as the technology developed, including embryonic experimentation, it was an important first step in protecting the dignity of human life. Unfortunately, the bill died in Parliament when the federal election was called in 1997.
It was to be the spring of 2001 before the current health minister, Allan Rock, would introduce draft legislation on RTs for the consideration of the Commons health committee. The committee is expected to report to Parliament in January 2002, and passage of the final legislation is not expected until at least June of 2002.
Unlike the earlier legislation, the new draft legislation contains very few, if any, prohibitions. Witness after witness before the health committee has pointed out the various loopholes that will allow virtually any scientific experiment to go forward, the only apparent restriction being the necessity of obtaining a licence to do so. In fact, it appears the most contentious issue for many of the committee members may not be what to prohibit, but rather what type of regulatory agency should oversee research involving NRTs. Minister Rock prefers an agency that will report directly to him. Some opposition MPs have suggested the agency should be more arm’s length to avoid the type of tragedy that arose in the 1980s with the blood supply, because of ministerial negligence.
It is now time for Canadians to fight a new battle in defence of human life and dignity. It is time to call your member of Parliament and remind him or her of the Nuremberg Code and the sacrifices we made to end the Holocaust. Demand a law that will end experimentation on those microscopic Canadians known as embryos. And express your positive support for research on adult stem cells. While the last war required us to raise a great army in defence of morality, this battle requires us only to dial a number, and say, “Never again.”
