Respecting All Human Life

National media has never been so fond of the phrase “the value of human life” as in the wake of the Sept. 11 tragedy. To watch our nation and its leaders unite in mourning the deaths of fellow citizens known to many of us only in their loss is a testament to the innate sense that each human life is sacred. In a dramatic way we have renewed our commitment as a nation to defend innocent human life. These considerations follow a recent national discussion about ethics and public policy: President George W. Bush’s Aug. 9 decision to restrict federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. While critics dismiss the decision as merely political, we insist that our country’s concern for human dignity requires the rejection of a utilitarian view of human life.

Embryonic stem cell research involves removing undifferentiated cells from a human life at its first stages of development. This procedure destroys the life of the embryo. Some scientists think that these cells may be useful in developing cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s and diabetes. Precisely because of our nation’s awareness of human dignity, we are moved by testimony of others’ suffering and wish to alleviate it. When the question regards the use of surplus embryos from fertilization clinics, many respond as Lecturer on Ethics in Science Louis M. Guenin did in the journal Science—that “relieving widespread suffering is morally better than destroying embryos at no gain.”

Guenin’s argument easily wins out if appearance is the standard of human dignity. But the novelty of our national vision is its radical concern for protecting human life regardless of its features. History teaches us that maintaining this vision demands a vigilant effort to recognize the humanity of others when it is not readily apparent to us, whether because of race, gender, religion, physical or mental disability or social position. In this regard the issue of embryonic stem cell research is one of the most difficult challenges for our nation’s moral conscience. Americans are called to protect a life which does not look human even though it may entail the continued suffering of those with recognizably human faces.

An argument that is appealing to many—even to those who object to manufacturing embryos strictly for research purposes—is that surplus embryos, which will either die or remain frozen indefinitely, could serve humanity better if used to cure disease. Harvesting organs from a death row inmate is an analogous case. If this person, also permanently outside of society, can serve humanity better by offering future medical benefits, what stands in our way of advancing such a policy? Furthermore, does this person not owe such a debt to society for his crime? If our moral sensibilities rebel against such an idea, how much more should we be shocked by the killing of a completely innocent human being for the same purpose?

To truly reject an instrumental view of human life, we must do so in cases where it is least intuitive. In moral judgment, we must follow our reason, which tells us that the embryo’s life has dignity because it is human (for what else is it?), rather than just our sentiments, which desire to alleviate visible suffering. Valuing human dignity is most important in situations where we have to do what we ought to do rather than what we would like to do.

Yet protecting the lives of human embryos does not require that we abandon all stem cell research or ignore the sufferings of those who could benefit from it. It simply demands that we focus our efforts on supporting ethically sound means to obtain the ends we desire. Research on the possible medical uses of stem cells is still in its inchoate stages, and there are a number of avenues open for exploration. Adult stem cells and placental stem cells, which can be obtained without killing a human being, also have great potential for use in medical treatments. Rather than using government money to support research which kills some human beings in an attempt to lessen the sufferings of others, let us use that money to help push forward the research being conducted on adult and placental stem cells.

As students at one of the most prestigious universities in the country, many of whom will be in a position to influence public policy or decide the direction of scientific research, we have a grave obligation to think seriously and deeply about the ethical dilemmas with which modern science confronts us. May we never stand in the way of progress, but may we be ever vigilant in ensuring that our progress always brings us toward a greater respect for the inherent dignity of all human life.

James E. Kruzer ’04, a government concentrator in Eliot House, is president of Harvard Right to Life (HRL). Melissa R. Moschella ’02, a social studies concentrator in Currier House, is a former president of HRL. This article does not necessarily reflect HRL’s official position.