2 - 2002

Ethics in modern medicine

For God’s Sake — God’s Will for Humankind!

From the beginning, choose life — don’t "de-select” it

by Ursula Beykirch

What implications does the biblical image of what it means to be human, of human beings created in the image of God, have for research on embryonic stem cells and pre-implantation diagnosis? The writer of this article leads us to confront the inevitable consequence: being able to select or destroy embryonic human beings. She sees a humane alternative in research on adult stem cells.

Isn’t it what we all wish for: new ways of helping people, by recognising diseases in time to prevent them, or even to suppress them in the germ cell, or to be able to heal deadly diseases which until now have been incurable? Unfortunately, discussions in recent months have shown that numerous problems bar the way towards realising these dreams, and cannot be solved simply through personal commitments made by researchers, changing laws or other such practical measures. The issues and decisions presented to us are a test of our image of what it means to be human, and of our ideas and rules on how people should get along with one another.

The churches uphold, in common with others, the biblical, Christian understanding of humanity. This means, above all, the dignity and worth of every human being, grounded in his or her creation in the image of God — every single person, and not through his or her having earned it, but rather through the simple fact of being human.
Our image of what is human is not an academic theory. It has consequences: it means that the right to life and the need to protect life begin at conception. They are not diminished for people at the embryonic stage any more than for elderly people; they have as much force for people with illnesses and disabilities as for the healthy and strong. Our experience shows that people in situations where they have limited ability to decide for themselves, or none at all, need special care and protection from being used for others’ purposes. This way of dealing with persons is the sign of a just society.

This view of the basic self-worth of every human being is also the foundation of our Basic Law. Our constitutional experts assure us that what the Basic Law says about protecting human dignity and the right to life of every human being also sets the standard for the way human lives in their earliest stages are to be treated.

The desire to introduce pre-implantation diagnosis (PID), which until now has been prohibited in Germany, often arises from the tragic situation of couples who want to conceive children. It is immensely difficult and distressing for parents who fear, because of their genetic heritage, that they will bring a child with a severe genetic defect into the world. But the offer of so-called pre-implantation diagnosis is not the answer. This means testing an embryo conceived outside the mother’s womb to see if it has the defect. If it does, it is destroyed. An embryo is only implanted in the uterus if it is found to be "free of defects”.

The churches are not the only ones to raise serious doubts about introducing such a method, for PID is used as means of selecting human beings at the embryonic stage. It is no solution or help, either for the particular couple concerned or for the society, to be able to sort human beings according to their "worthiness” or "unworthiness” to be allowed to live. Who is supposed to decide when someone is "worthy” of life and when not? Is it really fair to conceive one healthy child at the cost of the destruction of others? What will become of us if we succumb to such delusions of expediency?

Research on human embryonic stem cells is a similar situation. The declared purpose is admittedly fascinating: learning more about how such cells work, in order to use this knowledge in the future, perhaps, to treat previously incurable diseases. But it must not be forgotten that human embryonic stem cells can only be obtained in one way: by destroying embryos. Even decisions in this direction which don’t go all the way and thus seem manageable, for example allowing existing stem cell lines to be imported during a brief period and subject to other limits and monitoring, will inevitably lead to further steps being taken.

Then the question arises, at what point will we be ready to destroy how many embryonic human beings? To the suggestion that so-called "surplus” embryos be used, the churches clearly reply that "surplus” human beings do not exist. Even to speak of so-called "surplus” embryos shows a dangerous tendency to see them as objects, as if there could be people who are available to be freely used by anyone. At this price, the sought-after possible future healing for individuals is clearly too costly. Thus, for every decision to go part-way in this direction, the consequences must be examined and taken into consideration. It is easy to overlook the fact that there are other ways, such as research on adult stem cells, which deserve prior consideration because they do not involve destroying embryos. And no one can say now for certain what uses will be found in the future for such research being done today.

If research intended to bring about new therapeutic possibilities is therefore valued so highly that it takes precedence over protection of embryonic human beings, this would be a massive violation of the biblical, Christian image of what is human, which is also, after all, the basis of the constitution, laws and the system of justice in Germany. It is not those who want to continue to protect human life from the moment of fusion of the germ cells who should have to justify it, but rather those who want to weaken this protection for the benefit of other purposes. Freedom of research, competition and economic gain overstep their boundaries when they degrade embryonic human beings to the status of means to another end.

The mere fact that we are looking at new possibilities with great promise does not necessarily mean that this would represent real progress. We all want to preserve the achievements of a society in which the defenceless are protected, which lovingly and imaginatively stands up for people with illnesses and disabilities, and in which the parents of every child are assured the solidarity of the society. Who would regard giving up this standard as progress?

The churches want very much to move in the direction of truly just progress, together with researchers and politicians. Here the churches can contribute their particular competence in speaking of God’s will for humankind.

Dr. Ursula Beykirch is the managing director of the Faith Commission of the German (Roman Catholic) Bishops’ Conference. This article, here slightly abridged, giving the position of the two largest churches in Germany, appeared in the study guide for the "Week for the Defence of Life” (Woche für das Leben), 13-20 April 2000, which had the theme "From the beginning, choose life — don’t de-select it”. The study guide was published jointly by the President of the German Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Karl Lehmann, and the Council President of the Evangelical Church in Germany, Präses Manfred Kock.