|Blogs||Articles||Organizations||Biography||Jack's Book||Contact Information||Links|
Navigation: SOS Sisson > Life Ethics Blog
Jack Sisson's Life Ethics Blog
We must find new ways through many ethical issues, especially regarding bioethics, medical ethics, and criminal justice. Jack Sisson's 'Life Ethics' blog focuses on numerous areas of concern, including the philosophical and ethical dilemmas surrounding stem-cell research, abortion, medical research, and health care.
Monday, May 28, 2007
The Stem Cell Debate -- A Timeline
On July 18, 2006, The Washington Post published a timeline of the stem-cell debate. We've reproduced it here, with links to the actual Post story where applicable:
Nov. 5, 1998: The first stem cells are isolated by scientists at the University of Wisconsin and Johns Hopkins University. Stem cells can develop into any tissue, but the process is controversial because it requires destroying human embryos. Post Story
Aug. 9, 2001: President Bush declares federal funding will go to research only select stem cell lines derived from destroyed embryos left over at fertility clinics. States retain the ability to appropriate money for research or to restrict it. Post Story
However, scientists say some of the 64 designated cell lines are fragile. Post Story
Nov. 25, 2001: Scientists in Massachusetts perform the first cloning of human embryos. In a process called therapeutic cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer, cloned embryonic stem cells could generate replacement tissues that patients' bodies would not reject. Post Story
Nov. 2, 2004: In Proposition 71, Californians vote to spend $3 billion over 10 years on stem cell research, making the state the first to fund such research; 59 percent of the state's voters support the move.
Jan. 11, 2005: New Jersey's governor announces the state will fund a $150 million stem cell research center and promises to champion a ballot initiative to allocate another $230 million.
May 20, 2005: Bush vows to veto any legislation that would ease the restrictions he imposed on stem cell research in 2001. He has not yet used a presidential veto. Post Story
May 24, 2005: The House approves a bill to loosen Bush's restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research by a vote of 238 to 194. In voting in favor of the bill, 50 Republicans break with Bush. Post Story
To continue reading this timeline, click here.
Next, we'll look at what's happened in the past year.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Treading Lightly at the Frontier
Here in the USA, the issues surrounding the start of human life can seem so fraught with ambiguity that coming to any conclusion at all seems exactly the wrong thing to do: Too many people will be hurt, too many lives are at stake, too much offense will be taken -- in short, too much effort yields too much pain.
Wondering what the rest of the world might be up to regarding it all (and hindered by my classically American-Philistine inability to read any language other than English) led me to a number of sites in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere. One publication I found quite readable, and useful, was a "Debate Outline" from the Danish Council on Ethics, called The beginning of human life and the moral status of the embryo [367KB PDF]. If you are looking for a decisive conclusion, presented in stone, that will clear things up for you with no ambiguity at all, this is not the text for you. It is, after all, a "debate outline." If, however, you would like to read something to stimulate reasonable discussion -- in your own head if not in actual debate -- you could choose many worse starting points.
The entire thing is 39 A4-sized pages in length but will reward the patient reader. And if your stereotype about Scandinavian thinking on morality and ethics is that their collective mind is already made up -- those free-thinkers! those socialists! those makers of seductive '60s-era Noxzema-shaving-cream TV commercials! -- I urge you to think again.
The "outline" begins by presenting four points of view on the central questions. Here's a particularly enchanting excerpt, this one from the "3rd viewpoint" in a section headed, "When Is There Human Life, and What Moral Status Should It Be Ascribed?":
When does the new human life really come about?, we ask, in order to enable us to distinguish."Deference" certainly seems a concept alien to American discussions of complex political, social, and ethical issues. Our concept of frontier exploration is perhaps shaped too much by pop-culture references -- "How the West Was Won" -- and too little by fables and fairy tales, in which the protagonists tread lightly when setting forth on a journey whose outcome cannot be known in advance.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Religious Right a Little Bit Quieter: Jerry Falwell Dead at 73
Tuesday, May 15 -- Jerry Falwell died today after being found unresponsive in his office at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. The 73-year-old conservative Falwell's television ministry helped fuel the rise of the Religious Right. Rev. Falwell took very public stands on a variety of issues, and he encouraged his followers to do the same.
On embryonic stem-cell research:
Most pro-life people believe that life begins at conception or fertilization – that is the foundation for being pro-life. Therefore, we believe that even embryonic life is something to be cherished and protected even though, as Ron Reagan noted, these lives have no arms or legs or discernible signs of what we recognize as humanity.On the 9/11 attacks:
On September 13, 2001, Falwell appeared on the Christian Broadcasting Network's TV program "700 Club," hosted by Pat Robertson:The fallout was swift and loud. Robertson quickly back-pedaled and claimed he hadn't understood what Falwell was saying. Falwell himself called CNN the next day and issued an apology of sorts. After saying that only the hijackers and terrorists were responsible for the deadly attacks, he couldn't leave well enough alone:
"I do believe, as a theologian, based upon many Scriptures and particularly Proverbs 14:23, which says 'living by God's principles promotes a nation to greatness, violating those principles brings a nation to shame,'" he said.On Teletubbies:
The February 1999 issue of Jerry Falwell's National Liberty Journal ran an article entitled "Tinky Winky Comes Out Of The Closet," which questioned the "sexual preference" of the Tinky Winky character in the popular children's show, noting that the character carries a handbag. Need more evidence?Jerry Falwell. I can't think of much we agreed on, but you sure had a knack for making things interesting. Rest in peace.
Sir John Templeton is a Power Giver
In addition to Time Magazine's Time 100, discussed briefly below, the magazine lists 12 individuals they call Power Givers for the broad reach of their philanthropy. One name on the list is certain to be familiar to readers of this blog -- Sir John Templeton. His Templeton Foundation grants more than $60 million a year for research into the sciences and religion.
Jack had hoped that the foundation would help fund a dialogue on The Beginning of Human Life, a crucial issue in both the stem cell and abortion debates, but no luck so far. We believe a non-profit needs to take up the cause and apply for a grant. Or a university might consider a dialogue between its religion faculty and academics from other disciplines such as the social sciences, medicine, etc. There are so many different ways of looking at this question, and the divide is often so wide between beliefs, that the need for dialogue is a no-brainer to us.
Read more about Sir John Templeton and the other Power Givers (including Angelina Jolie).
Stem Cell Researcher One of Time's 100 Most Influential People
When Time Magazine released the Time 100, its list of the 100 most influential people of our times, it divided the list into five categories:
Artists & EntertainersAs with any list of this sort, you will find obvious and not so obvious choices, and you will wonder, as I did, why they neglected to include this entertainer or that hero. Or it might be the reverse, as in "how in the world did that bozo make the cut?"
One entry that gets no argument from me, however, is Douglas Melton in Scientists & Thinkers. At 53, he's the Co-Director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, and he admits that much of his motivation comes from his diabetic son. From Time:
Every day, Doug is on the front lines of the war not only against disease but also against the obstacles placed in the path of the science. And he has demonstrated that he has what it takes to advance this campaign. When President Bush cut federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research in 2001, Doug used private donations to create more than 100 stem-cell lines and distributed them without charge to researchers across the country. He has the skill and creativity to carry out the experiments that need to be done, and the vision and compassion to know that true humanity lies in relieving human suffering, not in acquiescing to politics or ideology.Click here to read more about Doug Melton and the other 99 movers and shakers on the Time 100.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Religious Right Continues Misinformation Campaign
From an op-ed in the Zanesville Times Recorder:
Currently our United States Congress is voting for a bill to waste millions of taxpayers dollars on something that has shown no results, that private companies can no longer afford to research because of the lack of results, and that has the component of killing to it - embryonic stem cell research. This they have done in the name of helping people with various diseases. However, since there has never been any cure with this research, and some of these embryonic stem cells have developed tumors, why waste our money when there are better, more successful ways already being used.This is the kind of nonsense that continues to hinder progress in obtaining federal and state funding for embryonic stem cell research. Through misinformation and half-truths, opponents to this research continue to erect roadblocks to its widespread acceptance.
Embryonic stem cells are already achieving good results in animal models, and with more funding their amazing potential will become a reality. I've yet to hear a "convincing" argument against this research, and yet the President, along with many state legislatures (like Florida), continue to withhold funds.
When the full potential of embryonic stem cells is realized at some point in the future, I wonder how many politicians will look back at their votes against the research and feel shame. They are prolonging the suffering of millions of people by prioritizing a microscopic cluster of cells. Now there's a morality I don't want to get too close to.
Here's the article.
Roe v. Wade
Stem Cell Fight!
Bush the hypocrite
June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 December 2005 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 March 2009 November 2009 April 2010 October 2010 April 2011 May 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013