I can't read the article, for some odd reason, but if it's about people not being allowed to have prayer meetings in their homes, as I've read a bit about recently, that's blatantly unconstitutional. The traffic thing I can understand, but that can't be extended to banning practice of religion on private property. These people need to try carpooling or taxis.

Church cannot define public policy
Arthur Schafer
Special to The Star

The Church is going to lose the battle over human embryonic stem cell research, as it should.

The Vatican has taken a leading role in the campaign to ban stem cell research because it considers embryos to be the moral equivalent of a person and the extraction of stem cells causes the embryos to expire. Although Christian scriptures nowhere mention extracorporeal embryos, the destruction of human embryos is claimed to violate the divinely ordained sanctity of human life.

The brouhaha ultimately reduces to this: Does organized religion still have the power to veto scientific progress? It does not. The Church has lost its veto power because ours is a pluralistic secular civilization. Each religion has its own scriptural authority and its own authoritative interpretation of holy texts. But whatever one's private religious convictions, appeal to divine authority is no longer acceptable as the basis for public policy.

Proponents of embryonic stem cell research point out that stem cells are extracted at a point when the zygote (newly fertilized egg) is nothing more than a microscopic blob, possessing neither a brain nor a nervous system. The early-stage human embryo is not a person, since personhood requires a functioning brain and nervous system. Indeed, since the zygote could still divide into twins or triplets, it cannot even be said to be an individual being.

Keep in mind, also, that nature is profligate with embryos. Every time a woman menstruates, there is a good chance that a newly fertilized egg is being flushed away with her menses. Billions of fertilized eggs never implant in the lining of the womb and billions more spontaneously abort after implantation. Indeed, one commonly accepted form of birth control, the intrauterine device (IUD), operates precisely by preventing implantation of the zygote. Demanding that the government ban stem cell research based on the sanctity of the zygote is, therefore, no different than arguing for a ban on the use of IUDs.

The proper role of government is not to enforce on all of society one particular view of divine revelation; rather its role and its greatest challenge is to obtain for humanity the maximum benefit from new medical technologies while minimizing the risks of serious harm. Governments should also ensure that benefits and harms are distributed equitably.

Both advocates and opponents of stem cell research concede that it has enormous potentiality for human benefit. The scientific goal is first to isolate stem cells and then to tweak them in such a way that they re-grow parts of our own bodies, thereby enabling us to treat and perhaps to cure such dread diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Stem cell research could also hold the key to the discovery of effective treatments for cancer and heart disease. The possibilities are almost endless. Since millions of people worldwide suffer terribly from these diseases, the prospect of discovering effective treatment has generated huge and justifiable excitement.

Of course, it may be the case that with further research these hoped-for benefits will prove illusory. No one who follows the news on the high-tech sector can fail to realize how often this week's medical miracle fizzles into next week's damp firecracker.

The isolation and growth of stem cells is a recent development, so no one can yet be confident of its therapeutic utility. Early experimental results are promising, but potential problems lie ahead: For example, once cell growth is turned on, it may be difficult to turn it off. Cells that cannot be turned off could destroy the health or life of the patient into whose body they've been introduced.

One may concede to the opponents of stem cell research that the human zygote has some degree of moral value (it is, after all, a living biological entity and not on the same moral level as an inanimate object, such as a mineral) but nevertheless insist that it does not have the high moral value that we attach to personhood.

The terror and suffering experienced by a patient with Alzheimer's disease, not to mention the suffering of the patient's family, has a claim on our moral concern that should outweigh our concern for the zygote. When scientific research offers possible relief to millions of suffering people, to proceed with such research is not, pace Pope John Paul II, "a coarsening of consciences." It is morally obligatory.

The British government has sensibly passed regulations that permit embryonic research to proceed, while ensuring that the research is done ethically. For example, embryos are not to be used for research without the informed consent of the couple that have contributed, respectively, their egg and sperm.

The Canadian government recently published draft legislation. Perhaps Health Minister Allan Rock will soon cease dithering and follow the British lead.

Religious dogma should not be allowed to perpetuate avoidable human suffering, nor should a stalemate be allowed to prevent the adoption of reasonable regulations to govern stem cell research.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Arthur Schafer is director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba.

Now, I don't have objections to the exploitation (call it what you will, it's beneficial for all of us in the end) of zygotes. The line has to be drawn somewhere; humps of cells may be alive by our definition, but they do not constitute a human being.

[ August 01, 2001: Message edited by: The_Evil_Lord ]

They are in no way taken as a means to change United States policy any more than a statement by Tony Blair on any issue would be. In other words any state or plolitical power still allied with the United States hope what they say is taken into consideration. With an eye to future relations with the Vatican, the Pope sends out his message, someone translates that for Dubya.

Dubya wants the Catholic vote for his election and might therefore put more weight on the Pope's comment than you or I would.

[ August 02, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

They should just be ignored.
j/k.