Whenever a politician delivers an address, his audience simply assumes that his message is going to be political. So deeply entrenched is this assumption that it prevails even on the relatively rare occasion when a politician delivers an address that is essentially ethical. It is like assuming that your lottery number is never going to be a winner and not noticing, on that lucky occasion, when you have actually hit the jackpot.

And so, the typical reaction to President Bush’s decision on the use of federal funds to finance research on stem cells derived from human embryos is that he has made a political compromise. We are creatures of habit. But certain bad habits can interfere with perception.

As President Bush states, his decision is based on two non-political, ethical considerations. The first has to do with the nature of the human embryo.

The second involves the question of whether any human embryo can be used as a means to an end. And he was true to his word.

The nature, that is, the reality of the human embryo transcends political considerations. Politics, in fact, exists for the benefit of the human being, who is prior. It is not the case that politics exists first, even before anyone knows what it means to be a human being, and then human beings are construed in relation to politics. Moreover, the notion that no human being, no matter how small or how wretched, should be used as a means to an end, rests on the non-political reality of the dignity of the human person. Nature, reality, and dignity are ethical, not political factors.

“The United Sates has a long and proud tradition of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge,” said the president. There is no higher standard of ethics than to respect the worth of every human being. This respect extends to refusing to subordinate any one human being to another. “Even the most noble ends,” he added, “do not justify any means.”

It is expected that untold numbers of disabled citizens of the United States will be disappointed that the President did not expand the frontier of federally funded research to include presently living human embryos. Yet they should be heartened because implicit in President Bush’s decision is the recognition that all American citizens-no matter how severely disabled, no matter how socially marginalized, no matter how personally dejected-are equally human beings.

The president’s position provides a bulwark against discrimination. He is saying that it is manifestly unethical to divide the human family into those who are important and those who are subservient. Two-tier thinking may sometimes be political; but it is never ethical.

In response to the president’s decision, Arthur L. Caplan, director of the Centre of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, is on shaky grounds when he states that, “Not all human embryos can be treated as morally equal.” But he allows the labels of “unfortunate” or “unwanted” to becloud his realization that, even from the viewpoint of embryonic physiology, they are all equal. Lepers and the mentally ill were once labeled as “unfortunate” or “unwanted,” and, as a consequence, were shunned from society. Bush’s message is both compassionate and inclusive.

At least one perceptive writer caught the ethical essence of the president’s address. Michael Ledeen, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, remarks that, “W’s fine speech will do some good, by elevating the debate, by showing the public that politicians can grapple with truly profound problems with modesty and dignity, and that this president is trying very hard to advance our interests, moral as well as material.”

Dr. Donald DeMarco is a member of the American Bioethics Advisory Commission and a professor of philosophy at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ont.