 |
| “School of Athens” by Rafael w/ Plato and Aristotle - referred to by Pope Francis during EU Parliamentary address Nov 25, 2014 |
There is an ethically sound scientific process to
allow for a donated Pluripotent stem cell from Human pre-embryos to be used for
medicine.
The cellular process of embryogenesis has been
studied at great length. The fundamental origin of Human Life is indeed the Creation
of a pre-embryo – that Sperm and Egg moment and the days thereafter of cell
preparation for a Mother’s acceptance. This fertilization moment and the
immediate cell divisions after are central to the beginnings of Healthy Physical
Life. This understanding is universally acknowledged.
The success of that biological union in the
combination of DNA from both parental sexes (male & female) provides the
early catalytic events that set in motion the journey to deliver a full term
baby. The process is clearly not perfect by anyone’s measure and doesn’t at all
guarantee stepwise progress nor a healthy outcome. There are a number of
important & vital moments along the way – most importantly to all is the
Mother’s acceptance of the pre-embryo into her uterus via the Implantation process
around Day 8 or 9 post fertilization.
The period before Implantation is referred to as
the “pre-embryo” phase, as it is clear from the scientific evidence and analysis
that the cellular process of developmental Life isn't sufficiently complete to
begin the formation phase of Human Life unless these early individual cells develop
to the Blastocyst stage, are accepted and successfully embedded in the uterus
wall of the Mother. Unless that happens a woman will pass the pre-embryo cells
out of her system, as she does with the uterus walls during her monthly period
cycle. Some women never accept a pre-embryo into their uterus as a result of many
possible problems, including the genetic instability or malformation of the
combined DNA nucleuses. Some women can only conceive with IVF assistance and pre-embryo
screening help.
IVF is not the topic here so I will leave that
for others to continue to debate its validity as this blog article is in reference to
the pre-embryo period and the possible non-destructive removal of a single cell
during this post-fertilization phase prior to Implantation.
Fertilization and the pre-embryo period is a
starting cycle without which Human Life couldn't develop, yet it is still merely
a starting signal for the remaining many phases that will confirm and define
what it is to Be Human.
The scientific distinction is as clear as an
Egg and Sperm. A pre-embryo is the union of DNA strands ready to embark on the
journey to create a Human. A ball of intelligent cells pre-programmed to develop if the
formation is correct, the proper signals received and the internal script processed
successfully. An embryo is the resultant accepted & developing Lifeform once
embedded in the Mother’s uterus. A Fetus is an established growing person with
a beating heart and developing brain within the Mother’s womb. These stages of Life
are clearly delineated by the process itself. Science merely exposed what
Nature has already defined. The success ratio of Nature is nowhere near perfect
in this process, as naturally fertilized ovums are discarded regularly and
assisted conception ratios low.
What is important to note here is the
difference between a pre-embryo, an embryo and an Human Fetus.
Needless to say all stages are Life and should
be duly respected.
Healthy Human Life can and does develop from a
pre-embryo after one cell is extracted for analysis and medically screened
while the remaining pre-embryo cells continue to divide and develop. The same biological
process is required for all pre-embryos to be accepted into and nurtured by the
Mother’s uterus – including the one that had a cell extracted for genetic
screening. Healthy babies are born every day using various cell extraction
screening techniques, free of genetic issues as a result.
The confusion here is that during these past
years of discovery cells were used from leftover & donated pre-embryos
that were not needed any longer by couples that had fertility treatment to
conceive. These pre-embryos were donated and had their cells removed in a
process which terminated the pre-embryo’s development. This method of obtaining
cells via donated pre-embryos for science continues. This method of cell
extraction isn't necessary as a cell can be extracted from an earlier stage pre-embryo using a
technique called Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), which is used
daily by fertility clinics world-wide. It can and should be used as the method
of choice to extract a Pluripotent cell from a pre-embryo in order to screen
for genetic issues while also enabling the process of scientific discovery
& cellular science. A Pluripotent cell is not a pre-embryo nor is it
capable of developing to become a pre-embryo or embryo. The use of this PGD
process can & does maintain the integrity of the pre-embryo state and it’s
potential, while allowing for genetic screening & vital treatments for
those that suffer from disease. One does not negate the other.
While I can appreciate the moral dilemma with
respect to those that feel a pre-embryo is a Human Life, I must differ in that the
science has proven that Human Life isn’t yet defined in these cells. There is
Biological Life of course present and the potential to develop further into a Human
but it isn’t sure whether it may or may not have the integrity to be viable nor
capacity to develop further. It isn't sure either that the Mother’s system will
accept the pre-embryo into her uterus and begin the developmental process of
formation to become what is defined by all as being Human. This process is
dependent on a number of natural system checks and balances. It has been
revealed that a successful pre-embryo must first properly create a DNA construct
and divide correctly to the point of being presentable to the Mother’s uterus.
Incorrectly formed pre-embryos don’t, in almost all cases, pass this initial
test. To say that an incorrectly formed pre-embryo that is rejected by the Mother’s
system is a Human is wrong. This would by extension apply also
to a pre-embryo that seems to have the right cellular makeup but still doesn't
get accepted by the Mother’s uterus for other natural selection reasons. There
are chemical signals within the Mother’s body that function as a viability
filter and She initiates acceptance & provides the signal environment for Human
organ development post Implantation. So unless a pre-embryo embeds in the uterus
we cannot begin to be classified as Human as we haven’t started to emerge from
that pre-embryo ball of cells and take shape. Even then the issue of the many
and correctly passaged development stages of the embryo into a Fetus lies ahead.
Our Churches, Temples & Shrines aren't the
sole purveyors of ethics and moral standing in our community. They certainly
can help us along the path but we must all accept our own responsibility to
understand and draw conclusions on the reality of our progress as a society. If
Religion is anything it is a bellwether for the community and when some
within the community need its guidance it has a duty to inform and guide based on
the best interests of the people themselves, by disseminating knowledge and
wisdom in a practical and spiritual context.
I say this as it has long been debated whether
pre-embryo cells from donated IVF fertility treatments are sound ethical
starting blocks for medical science. Will this still be the case when the
truth is known that pre-embryos need not be destroyed and their potential
maintained?
It is my opinion that to negate the progress of
medical science in assisting the creation of Life is tantamount to ignoring Man
in their quest for Love & Happiness. Especially if it doesn't harm the
potential of further Life becoming a reality. It is also important to acknowledge that while assisting Life science has opened a door for simultaneous
treatment of the sick. Life and Treatments together in one, as God intended.
Will there be criticism when medical science
proves that Mother Natures’ most important cells – the potential Life forming pre-embryo
cells – are used for the living that suffer and provide needed relief? Or will
the misunderstood concept of the need to destroy prevail while the true facts of early
Life processes, the nature of an independent cell state & its developmental knowledge be withheld from God’s
people?
Pre-embryo cells can be taken without harm to
the potential of Life and donated to help the living. Tissue willingly provided, as is done regularly today with blood and organs. A child can be born only
when a pre-embryo is accepted by a Mother’s uterus, develops and successfully
grows to term.
A day 3-4 Morula stage cell extraction does not destroy the potential to create Life.
Later stage cell extractions at the Blastocyst Stage terminates the pre-embryo.
Ensoulment is by a far the greatest gift to Human
Life – for without it we would be unconscious. Consciousness defines our Personhood,
our Self. It is the defining characteristic that allows the physical to exist
and the non-physical to be reasoned. One could say that this component of Humanity
is Divine. It certainly is one of the central tenets of Religion and for which a
valued guide in our community is sought.
Throughout the History of Christianity there
has been an overriding concept debated within the inner halls of the Institution
itself – Ensoulment and when it occurs.
More clearly than ever today is the molecular
insight into the developmental phases of the origins of Human Life. This in
itself requires the ethical and moral concepts of the day to be reflected upon.
Terminating a pregnancy – once it is established
in the Mother’s womb – has always been an immoral act in the eyes of the Christian
Church. In certain circumstances the willful termination of a developing Life was
considered unavoidable if the Life of the Mother was at risk. The implications of
this Human Act in the eyes of the Catholic Church was Excommunication as the
punishment, in most cases. However, this was not universally true throughout
history as there was a clear separation between the ethics of the immoral act
of terminating a Life willfully and the punishment itself, if it was performed
early in the developmental cycle post fertilization.
It seems the “Ensoulment” moment was the
dividing line. A uniformly accepted believe for most of recorded history as
occurring after a period of weeks post fertilization. Therefore the doctrine of
a Human Life’s relationship to God, beyond the potential of a developing Lifeform,
was enshrined in the Church’s teachings in this fundamental Ensoulment moment.
These philosophical discussions within the Catholic Church are a documented
series of changing positions dating back to the beginnings of the Christian
Church.
When the issue was debated it was framed by the
obvious question of at what point in the development of a Life in the Mother´s womb
is that Life considered Human with a Soul and therefore one with God.
That Ensoulment moment was long considered 40
days after fertilization at a minimum for a male Fetus and 90 days at the
outside for a female Fetus. The documentation dates back thousands of years to
the Ancient Greek scholars & Aristotle in 350 BC. However, even at that
time there were contradictory opinions that held the Soul entered at the moment
of conception. The teachings of Aristotle of a later Ensoulment moment became widespread
by the time of Augustine in the fifth century as the concept of stage
development of a Lifeform from vegetative to animal to Human became accepted.
Prevailing Christian thought became documented in the 12th century by
the preachings of Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Vienne to that of
Aristotle. Yet subsequent Popes differed on the doctrine of excommunication on
the basis of formed versus unformed Fetuses and the topic of Ensoulment as a
consequence. Early Church theologians attempted to bridge this divide with a
Casuistry compromise that allowed for non-ensouled Life to be regarded as
different than that of an ensouled Human Life. Since the eighteenth century the
Church has considered Human Life beginning at conception along with Ensoulment.
Needless to say this debate has raged in the Church since it’s inception as an
Institution.
What is apparent from a lay perspective is that
the Church has adapted its own views to the popular reality of the day and considered
scientific facts, as presented. The difference between then and now is
fundamental in that today there is molecular science and it has revealed to all
the embryonic process and the value of the cell in curing the living.
As the reality of the day becomes the norm, there
is and will be assisted births, genetic treatments and cellular science derived
from the earliest stage of Life (naturally conceived, programmed or reprogrammed).
An altered series of biological interventions by science in the process of
serving his fellow man.
This process can be done without destroying a
naturally fertilized union between an Egg and Sperm. There are many ways to
create that don’t destroy. There is a need to accept and understand what the
difference is between the viability to create Life, the potential of cells and Human
Life itself. Without bridging the divide on the issues a meaningful opportunity
to engage and grow stronger together will be lost.
There is no question in my mind that there is a
Duty in respecting existing and developing Human Life Implanted, Developing
& Ensouled in the womb through all possible means.
Medical assistance by way of Non-Destructive
cell science for the benefit of those in need is similarly a Duty and Humane.
