Author: Ruth Wood
What issues could you be asked to discuss in an exam when it comes to the Embryo?
Cloning
Reproductive Cloning: Creation
of an identical copy of an organism, common in selective animal breeding, but
illegal to clone humans.
Therapeutic Cloning (Stem-Cell
Cloning): Clones biological material to produce embryos, from which
stem cells can be taken to be used in research.
Therapeutic cloning is cloning that is
performed for the purpose of medical treatment. It could theoretically be used
to grow a replacement organ, for example, to generate skin for a burn victim,
or to create nerve cells for someone suffering from brain damage or a
neurological condition.
Embryo Research
Any research that involves
fertilised human embryos – this is permitted in the UK as long as the embryo is
not allowed to develop past a very early stage.
Examples:
IVF: fertilising an egg either by mixing it with sperm or by
injecting a sperm cell into an ovum, before implanting this into a woman’s
womb.
Genetic screening: checking the genetic makeup of fertilised
embryos to see which ones should be implanted. Embryos with genetic
abnormalities, such as diseases and disabilities, will be discarded and not
implanted.
Designer Babies
A baby that has been
genetically engineered to have certain traits – this may be to ensure that they
do not have a genetic disease, but also to ensure that the child is of a
certain gender or appearance.
Currently, babies are not
“designed” for appearance, but this could become commonplace in the future for
those who can afford to do so privately.
A less extreme version of
“designer babies” is when a selection of fertilised embryos are screened, and
the one with the desired traits is implanted into the mother – this baby is
therefore not genetically engineered, it is just specially selected.
Abortion
An abortion is the medical process of ending a
pregnancy so it doesn't result in the birth of a baby.
Most abortions in England, Wales and Scotland
are carried out before 24 weeks of pregnancy.
They can be carried out after 24 weeks in
certain circumstances – for example, if the mother's life is at risk or the
child would be born with a severe disability.
Students - Now Try This: Create a one-paragraph summary of each of the ethical issues prescribed in human life and death relating to the Embryo.
Buddhist Attitudes to the Embryo
(Relevant to abortion, cloning, ‘designer’ babies and embryo research)
Abortion
Arguments Against Abortion
Generally, Buddhists oppose actions that harm the embryo such as abortion as they believe that life begins at conception. Peter Harvey (An Introduction to Buddhism, 1990) elaborates on this point: “Abortion is said to break the first precept as it cuts off precious human rebirth.” To begin with it is important to clarify an aspect of the Buddhist attitude to human life. Human life, as in other religions, is often seen as vitally important, even sacred. However, the reason for this is not that God has created it, but because a human birth provides a precious opportunity to gain enlightenment (which is very much more difficult if you are not human, e.g. an animal, a god, or a hungry ghost). So human life is valuable, but instrumentally valuable, i.e. as a means to an end. That end is enlightenment, not an ordinary worldly end, so this view could be called spiritual instrumentalism. When you apply this to abortion and put it together with traditional Buddhist belief in rebirth, this means that abortion is generally wrong, for the reason that it interferes with a human rebirth and thus prevents that being seeking enlightenment.
Rebirth is usually believed to begin at
conception, when the consciousness from the previous life (known as the
garbha), craving a new rebirth, attaches itself to the fertilised egg [In the
Theravada, this is seen as an instantaneous transfer from the previous body,
but the Mahayana sees the transfer as occurring via an intermediate state (in
Tibetan Buddhism known as the bardo) between death and rebirth, in which the
consciousness wanders, eventually seeking new rebirth because of its fear of
the apparent non-existence it encounters. So there is no doubt in traditional
Buddhism that abortion is the killing of a person. Therefore, any action which results in the death of the foetus is seen
as wrong because it cuts of “precious human rebirth” – this can be applied to
abortion, cloning in instances where foetuses are destroyed, and embryo
research that destroys the embryo.
Peter Harvey also comments Aborting a foetus causes bad karma, the karma is said to be worse if it is later on in the pregnancy (as the foetus is larger). This could imply that the Buddhist attitude to abortion is fairly deontological (the action is wrong because it is always seen to be murder).
Arguments Supporting Abortion
However, Buddhism could also be shown to have a more flexible attitude to abortion, Peter Harvey comments: Most Buddhists would accept abortion to save the mother’s life. And Abortion is common in post-war Japan [after the atomic bombs in World War Two caused foetal abnormalities] but women are said to attain for the act by praying that a bodhisattva helps their aborted child. Whilst abortion is clearly an undesirable act which causes negative karmic effects, Buddhist ethics cannot be described as purely deontological, as there are clearly flexible parameters for permitting an abortion, rendering it more similar to teleological ethical theories.
The rule of intention does mean
that there are some instances where Buddhists may allow abortion, these could
be compared to similar cases of Double Effect in Natural Moral Law. For
example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, a doctor must remove a woman’s
fallopian tube or the embryo from the fallopian tube, as it begins growing
outside the uterus and if left untreated it will kill the mother. Aquinas would
argue in this instance that ‘Double Effect’ applies – the doctor is performing
a good action (preserving life through removing the fallopian tube) but an
accidental effect of this is the death of a foetus, which contradicts the
teachings of Thomist Ethics, however as the initial action was good it is
morally permissible. Buddhist views on intention could be used to argue the
same point: the doctor intended to save the woman’s life rather than kill the
foetus, meaning the doctor would not get bad karma and has not performed an
immoral action.
Students - Now Try This:
Create a for and against plan for a question on Buddhist attitudes to abortion, including an overall conclusion on how Buddhist attitudes to abortion could be summarised.
Embryo Research, including cloning of human embryos and the creation of designer babies
Objections to embryo research
More
conservative and traditional (especially Theravada) Buddhists are very likely
to object to embryo research.
1. Embryos
are persons
Following the traditional Buddhist belief that human personhood begins at
conception, when the personality from the previous life joins the fertilised
egg, there is no difference between the moral status of the embryo during the
first two weeks after fertilisation and its status later on after further
development. The destruction of “spare” embryos in IVF would thus be killing of
persons, which clearly goes against the first precept.
2. Indirect
killing is no defence
Nor would it be accepted as a defence in Buddhism to say that embryo research
aims mainly to preserve life, but involves the destruction of embryos as a side
effect, so that the violence is indirect. Indirect violence is still treated as
blameworthy in Buddhism, for example in the advice given about Right
Livelihood: selling arms or poisons are seen as wrong livelihoods because these
things are used to take life, and blame will attaches to the seller even though
his/her role in the violence was indirect. Similarly, whilst embryo research
only indirectly destroys human life, the scientist is still to blame for this.
3. The goals
of embryo research may reflect greed
The idea that the killing of embryos is justified in order to save or improve
other lives in the long run may also be questioned from a traditional Buddhist
point of view, on the grounds that the goals of embryo research are themselves
questionable. Stem cell research, for example, aims to be able to grow cloned
organs in a tank as spare parts ready for transplantation. But if the price of
this is the destruction of human life, it may be argued that the desire for
such organs reflects greed and a lack of acceptance of the impermanence of the
human body.
In favour
of embryo research
Only a few
radical, and most likely Western, Buddhists are likely to support embryo
research on Buddhist grounds, by emphasising other aspects of Buddhist ethics
1.
Personhood cannot be precisely identified
Some Western Buddhists may doubt traditional accounts of the rebirth process,
either because they are doubtful, or at least agnostic, about rebirth itself,
or because they accept rebirth but would not accept the traditional account of
when and how it occurs. It might be argued that it is more in accordance with
the findings of modern science to suggest that rebirth occurs gradually, and
that karmic residues from a previous life are merged gradually with a
developing foetus in the womb. They might also appeal to the Buddhist doctrine
of insubstantiality (anatta) as pointing out that there is really no such
category as “personhood” in Buddhism. According to this teaching, a 'person' is
really just a set of processes to which we attach a label 'person'. When we
should attach that label for moral purposes, then, is not very clear cut.
2. Killing
varies in blameworthiness
Whether or not the embryo has the status of a 'person', to kill it would still
be blameworthy under the first precept. However, there is a also a traditional
recognition in Buddhism that the killing of a larger animal is a more serious
matter than that of a smaller animal, as it requires more effort and deliberate
action. For this reason, late abortion is still considered more blameworthy
than early abortion, and research on embryos would thus be killing, but not
such blameworthy killing as that involved in abortion or other types of killing
of humans.
3. The
Middle Way
Finally, the Middle Way may be invoked to support a more moderate approach to
embryo research. More traditional and conservative forms of Buddhist ethics
simply exclude any serious consideration of the advantages of embryo research,
or of the desires that lead to it, but the more basic Buddhist teaching of the
Middle Way would suggest that these advantages, and the desire to help others
which lies behind embryo research, should be recognised and taken into account.
Simply holding onto the fixed idea that we should not kill involves eternalism,
whilst abandoning our responsibility towards embryos involves nihilism. Perhaps
a moderate position avoiding both extremes would involve trying to recognise
ways in which embryos are not in fact persons whilst acknowledging our
responsibility towards them as potential persons. This might lead to trying to
minimise any unnecessary experimentation on embryos, but supporting
experimentation which stands a good chance of relieving suffering, such as much
stem cell research.
Students - Now Try This:
Create a for and against plan for a question on Buddhist attitudes to using the embryo, including an overall conclusion on how Buddhist attitudes to the embryo could be summarised.
No comments:
Post a Comment