2 - 2002
Ethics in modern medicine
An End to Modesty
Bio-politics in Germany after 30 January 2002
by Johannes Reiter
This article presents the motions on which the German Bundestag voted. The motion which was passed by a majority permits embryonic stem cells to be imported under strict conditions, which are here described in detail. Johannes Reiter also gives an overview of the reactions of the motions’ sponsors and their supporters, especially those who were defeated, among whom the churches are included.
After the arguments had gone back and forth, position papers had been read, the ethical front lines had been drawn and the various motions had been tabled, on 30 January 2002 the hour struck for the parliamentarians.
The members of the parliament had organised themselves into camps across party lines. Three groups had tabled motions, which could be briefly characterised as "Yes” (in favour of an importation of human embryonic stem cells), "No” and "No but”. The "Yes” motion, by the group around MPs Peter Hintze of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Ulrike Flach of the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and Wolfgang SchŠuble (CDU), supported not only unrestricted imports, but also kept the option open that German researchers might create their own cell lines if needed. This motion received (only) 106 votes in the first round.
The "No” motion was tabled by MPs Wolfgang Wodarg of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), Hermann Kues (CDU), Monika Knoche (Greens), Wolfgang Thierse (SPD) and others. This motion, which was initiated and supported by members of the German Catholics’ central committee, spoke against any importing of human embryonic stem cells. It received the most votes in the first round, 263... In the second round it was supported by 266 MPs.
The "No but” motion, which was regarded as a compromise motion, was initiated by MPs Maria Böhmer (CDU), Margot von Renesse (SPD) and Andrea Fischer (Greens). According to this proposal, importing embryonic stem cells is prohibited in principle, but allowed in exceptional cases for research purposes under narrowly defined conditions. It received 225 votes in the first round and in the second round 339 votes, a majority.
The public reaction to this parliamentary decision ranged from restrained to relieved. Criticism of the decision by newspapers came only from the dailies Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger and Die Tageszeitung. Researchers were pleased but subdued, because for their purposes the decision did not go far enough. The Federal Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry saw the parliament’s vote as "a step in the right direction”.
Massive criticism came from both of the largest German churches. Their representatives were almost united in criticising the vote by the German Bundestag. The President of the German Roman Catholic Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Karl Lehmann, and the Council President of the Evangelical Church in Germany, Präses Manfred Kock, were both "very disappointed” with the decision. They said that, because of this decision, the right to life and the unrestricted protection of human life from the moment of conception are no longer guaranteed, and the decision also goes against the spirit of the law on protection of embryos.
Both Presidents called upon all those in political office to do everything they can, in spite of this decision, to give vigorous support to the protection of human life from the very beginning, so that this decision will not lead to the breaching of the dam. The two leaders announced, in the name of their churches: "We will continue undiminished our monitoring of bio-ethical decisions still to be taken, and will call public attention to any possible threats.”
The further steps required have already been taken by the politicians. Minister for Research Bulmahn announced that she would table a bill in Parliament before the end of February. The debate on it could then be concluded by June, and the law could then come into force. The law which is to be created must, in particular, include the six conditions for research proposals, as named in the compromise motion which was passed. Among them is the setting of a deadline; only stem cells may be imported which can be proven to have existed already on 30 January 2002.
Another condition is that the parents from whom the embryos were obtained must consent to the derivation of stem cells from them. This means, in plain language, that parents have a right to make their offspring available to be killed. Such a right cannot be substantiated either constitutionally or ethically. To the demand that the parents should not receive any financial recompense, one can only agree.
But anyone who has some idea of economics will ask why only the supplying companies should be allowed to make money on the cell lines, and not the parents as well. And if the parents wish to remain anonymous, which is understandable, how can there be any check as to whether money has changed hands? — Another condition is that a central Ethics Commission is to be appointed, which is to examine the research proposals to make sure that they are ethically defensible, and a monitoring authority whose approval is required in order to import stem cells.
It is crucial for the credibility of this institution that its membership and procedures be transparent, including the requirement that there be no conflict of interest for any of its members. It must also be a requirement for the members of both Commission and monitoring authorities that they are neither advisers of any applicant for an import permit, nor partners in the company where such an applicant works, and that they also receive no financial compensation.
On looking back it can be observed that the public debate which lies behind us as to the potential of stem cell research, and on which cells research should be performed and why, has been positive in that it has raised the level of public information and ethical sensitivity. Science, politics and the public have been concerned with a subject which used to be reserved for the proverbial ivory tower. In a time when the results of scientific activity are increasingly also determining political actions, this has opened up an opportunity for a fruitful dialogue.
The discussion has also revealed the powerful dynamic in the biological sciences which is forcing our society to confront the breaking of its moral taboos in ever more rapid succession, and to decide what to do about this. The importation of human embryonic stem cells opens a door to consequences which we cannot yet foresee — this is a problem which the society has to face. The present decision to allow such imports has still not answered the question of our fundamental attitude towards the use of embryos for research. How far should freedom for research go? Do we want to live in a world in which, in the name of vague promises of healing, basic values are not only being increasingly questioned, but are even, little by little, being given up altogether?
In our secularised world, there is no longer a moral authority which can prescribe a consensus for our society on the status of human life. This means that the society itself must continually discuss and make for itself agreements that will do justice to the dignity of the human being which is guaranteed in our Basic Law. This too is the price of freedom.
Dr. Johannes Reiter is Professor of Moral Theology at the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Mainz. He is a member of the Survey Commission on "Law and Ethics of Modern Medicine” of the German Bundestag. This article, which appears here in abridged form, was published in the journal Herder Korrespondenz, No. 3/2002.