[Pflienews] PharmFacts E-News Update: Irving on "pre-embryos" and safeguarding human life; adult stem cells yield medical cures; more...
PFLI PharmAid Center
pfli at pfli.org
Mon Jun 15 15:12:07 MDT 2009
*PharmFacts E-News Update -- 15 Jun 2009 AD
*
//
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/
Adult stem cells found to cure blindness -- three patients cured
/Medical researchers at the University of New South Wales have used
simple contact lenses cultured with stem cells from a patient's own eye
to return sight to sufferers of corneal disease.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09060411.html
<http://ss.all.org/link.php?M=84895&N=201&L=1492&F=H>
/Adult stem cell research helping Autism
/A woman from New York has written an open letter to President Obama
saying that stem cell research using adult stem cells has helped her
daughter's autism. Judy DiCorcia is reporting that her daughter, Lauren,
a 10-year-old girl with autism has improved significantly after the stem
cell treatment and therapy in Germany in January 2009.
http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=3084&grupo=News%20%20Media&canal=News
<http://ss.all.org/link.php?M=84895&N=201&L=1493&F=H>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_164safeguardinglife.html
*"Pre-embryos" and "Pre-embryo substitutes": Safeguarding human life
"from the very beginning"?*
Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
Copyright June 8, 2009
Reproduced with Permission
1. Introduction
How difficult it has been to "safeguard human life" from "the very
beginning". Indeed, especially over the last 40 years or so, the value
of human life has diminished steadily and rapidly - especially with
regard to its "beginning". Yet even aside from the important and
significant "personhood" debates, the Church has consistently taught
that the mere fact that there is a living innocent human being before us
is sufficient to safeguard the life of that human being even at its very
beginning. Pope John Paul II often addressed this tragic trajectory of
the loss of respect for human life, as in his encyclical Evangelium vitae:
*Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by
empirical data*, the results themselves of scientific research on
the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by
the use of reason a personal presence *at the moment of the first
appearance of a human life*: how could a human individual not be a
human person?" ... Furthermore, what is at stake is so important
that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, *the mere probability
that a human person is involved *would suffice to justify an
absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a
human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all
scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the
Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has
always taught and continues to teach that the result of human
procreation, *from the first moment of its existence*, must be
guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the
human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit ...
[Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 60, On the Value and
Inviolability of Human Life (Encyclical, March 25, 1995), at:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html]
(emphases added)
But precisely when is "the first moment of its existence"?!
Without doubt, the abuse of language, especially scientific "language",
has shrouded clear facts about precisely when the "first moment of its
existence is", and has hastened this drastic decline in the respect for
human life. This linguistic abuse has been both purposeful as well as
naively equivocal. That is, it is not just because of the willful and
devious use of language by ardent supporters of IVF and other ARTs,
abortion, the use of abortifacients, human embryo and human fetal
research, human cloning, and genetic engineering, etc., but also because
even many of those who are dedicated to this "safeguarding" themselves
fall victim to the use of erroneous "scientific" terms. The result is an
amazingly long list over the decades of what I have often referred to as
"pre-embryo substitutes".
Given that this linguistic phenomenon continues unabated as we speak, it
might be of help to remind ourselves of how very subtly these linguistic
twists can come about so that we can be more sensitive to identifying
them. Generally speaking, there are a number of ways that the misuse of
simple scientific "language" can slip into our rhetoric and our thinking
processes without notice.
2. The "Pre-Embryo"
First, it is to be noted historically that the authors of the now
officially rejected false scientific term "pre-embryo", which term has
caused almost 30 years worth of a deluge of horrific and unethical
medical policies and destructive research, were a Catholic Jesuit priest
and a Catholic frog biologist - Fr. Richard McCormick and Clifford
Grobstein. According to them, there is an important scientific and moral
distinction to be made between a "human being" and a "human person".
That is, they /agreed /that the immediate product of fertilization was a
human /being /(a "genetic individual"), but before 14-days it was not
yet a human person (a "developmental individual") with a rational soul,
and thus with the same ethical and legal rights and protections as all
other human persons. Before 14-days there was just a "pre-embryo", a
"non-person" - and although it should be "respected", it is still
ethical to kill this "pre-embryo" for proportionate reasons. Of course,
this "distinction" of McCormick and Grobstein between a "human being"
and a "human person" - as with so many other similar "distinctions" ripe
in the bioethics literature over the years - is a false distinction, a
"distinction" without a real difference.
This false pseudo-scientific term "pre-embryo", and its accompanying
false term "individuality", was finally formally rejected by the
international nomenclature committee in human embryology. That committee
made it clear that at fertilization (sexual human reproduction), the
"embryo" begins to exist immediately. Thus, scientifically, there is no
such thing as a "/pre-embryo/" that exists after fertilization and
before 14-days. There is, rather, an already existing embryo. As famous
Swiss human embryologist, as a member of that international nomenclature
committee, and as major contributor to the Carnegie Stages of Early
Human Embryonic Development themselves, stated bluntly in his human
embryology textbooks years ago:
The term 'pre-embryo' is not used here for the following reasons:
(1) it is *ill-defined *because it is said to end with the
appearance of the primitive streak or to include neurulation; (2) it
is *inaccurate *because purely embryonic cells can already be
distinguished after a few days, as can also the embryonic (not
pre-embryonic!) disc; (3) it is *unjustified *because the accepted
meaning of the word embryo includes all of the first 8 weeks; (4) it
is *equivocal *because it may convey the erroneous idea that a new
human organism is formed at only some considerable time after
fertilization; and (5) it was introduced in 1986 'largely for
*public policy reasons*' (Biggers). ... Just as postnatal age begins
at birth, *prenatal age begins at fertilization*." [Ronan O'Rahilly
and Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York:
Wiley-Liss, 2001), (p. 88)] (emphases added)
Of import too is that the Carnegie Stages are professionally required to
be used by all authors in their human embryology textbooks. (You will
also notice the full chart of the Carnegie Stages included in these same
professional scientific textbooks, as well as the Carnegie Stage
numerical superscripts above the less technical renditions of them used
by these authors in textbooks meant for unsophisticated students to
indicate for the reader where to go to find out more detailed and
refined scientific descriptions of these stages).
However, the "pre-embryo" had already been institutionalized by then
(even around the world), and many on both sides of the aisle were not
happy with this formal scientific refutation of their supra-useful
linguistic invention. For those who wanted to pursue IVF, abortion,
research, etc., they would have to come up with some other false
scientific terms to scientifically "justify" what they wanted to do. And
for many on the other side of the aisle the "pre-embryo" had allowed
them to be perceived as more "pastoral", more "empathetic", more
"scientifically current", more "modern" and more popular, enabling them
to "have a seat at the table". They too would turn a blind eye at the
easily accessible accurate empirical facts of human embryology known and
continuously internationally documented and updated for over a hundred
years - and found in libraries all over the world, even now on the
internet. The temptations were overwhelming.
3. "Pre-embryo Substitutes"
And thus began "stage two" of this sort of verbal deception required to
"scientifically" justify all manner of projects with the early human
embryo. This "stage" I have often referred to as consisting of
"pre-embryo substitutes". That is, the term "pre-embryo" must now
necessarily be dropped, but the same agenda could be accomplished by
substituting other false "science" in its place, or simply /leaving out
/legitimate early phases of human embryonic development as if they
didn't exist. One example of this is to claim that the "zygote" is the
beginning of when a human being begins to exist. But this would render
the human being already existing /before /the formation of the "zygote"
non-existent - neither a human being nor a human person - and thus it
could be used simply as "biological material", especially in human
genetic engineering research, etc. This "biological entity" is often
referred to in the literature as a "pre-zygote" - that is, what is there
from the beginning of fertilization up to the formation of the zygote is
not a human embryo or a human being. It is just a human "cell".
However, the Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development make
it clear that the "zygote" formed at the end of the process of
fertilization is not when a new human being begins to exist. Before
that, the developing *embryo *in Stage 1 of the Carnegie Stages begins
with *"first contact" *of the sperm with the oocyte, followed by,
respectively, the phases of development referred to as "the penetrated
oocyte" and the "ootid". In other words, the new human embryo begins to
exist at first contact, at the beginning of the process of fertilization:
Fertilization, which takes place normally in the ampulla of the
uterine tube [[fallopian tube]], includes *(a) contact of
*spermatozoa with the zona pellucida of an oocyte, *penetration *of
one or more spermatozoa through the zona pellucida and the ooplasm,
swelling of the spermatozoal head and extrusion of the second polar
body, *(b) *the formation of the male and female pronuclei, and *(c)
*the beginning of the first mitotic division, or cleavage, of the
*zygote*. ... *The three phases (a, b, and c) referred to above will
be included here under stage 1*, /the characteristic feature of
which is unicellularity/. (Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic
Development, p. 9, at:
http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/stage1.pdf)
(emphases added)
Note especially that "first contact" is included in, but precedes, the
"penetrated oocyte" of phase (a). Given the spectacular biochemical
events that are tripped at the moment of first contact of the sperm with
the oocyte - events that could definitely not and do not take place in
either a sperm or an oocyte alone - it is clear that a new substantial
change has taken place. (It is interesting that in both biology and in
classic realist philosophies, the identification of a new substance is
marked in the relevant texts as "function follows form", or "action
follows being)! That is, radically new functions or actions follow the
formation of a radically new form - which radically new form causes
those new functions and actions).
Another example of leaving out specific stages of early human embryonic
development can be found in several definitions in laws and regulations.
A classic example is the formal definitions of "fetus" and "pregnancy"
in the federal OPRR/OHRP guidelines for the use of human subjects in
research as both "beginning at implantation". (In fact, the "fetal"
period does not begin until the beginning of the 9th week of
development). In this example, then, there is no embryo at all - through
8 weeks, /in vivo /or /in vitro/, sexually or asexually reproduced -
gone! And all women (rather than just those undergoing IVF or ART)
become pregnant only at implantation; before that they are not
"pregnant" (and therefore, the use of abortifacients, embryo flushing,
prenatal genetic diagnosis, as well as all manner of human embryo
research, are "ethical").
Or, one can /add /to specific stages of early human embryonic
development. In a more recent example, the order of scientific terms
that should inclusively mean the embryo at all of its various early
stages is shifted. Listing the term "embryo" /after /them, as if what
came before was not an embryo, makes the embryo during those earliest of
phases of development essentially disappear. Thus we have this following
subtle but spurious "pre-embryo substitute" which for all the world
sounds very prolife:
"Embryos are no different in their essential humanity from a fetus
in the womb, a 10-year old boy, or a 100-year old woman. At every
stage of development, human beings (whether *zygote, blastocyst,
embryo*, fetus, infant, adolescent or adult) retain their identity
as an enduring being that grows toward its subsequent stage(s);
*embryos *are integral beings structured for maturation along their
proper time line."
So, to the casual observer, by adding the term "embryo" /after /the
terms "zygote" and "blastocyst" - followed by "fetus", "infant", etc. --
it would appear that the "zygote" and the "blastocyst" are something
/other than /an "embryo" - i.e., not yet an embryo, not yet a human
being (much less a human person). (Not to mention that the embryo formed
at first contact, the "penetrated oocyte" and the "ootid" are not even
listed). And importantly also, it would seem then that only /embryos
/(which apparently doesn't include the embryo at its earliest phases of
development) "are integral beings structured for maturation along their
proper time line", etc. - and not also "zygotes" and "blastocysts".
Again, one can make a "pre-embryo substitute" by articulating only one
kind of human reproduction. For example, one can claim that /all /human
beings begin to exist at "fertilization" or at "conception". But by
definition, that makes all human beings reproduced asexually disappear
(which would include one of every set of naturally occurring human
monozygotic twins /in vivo/, and all human embryo reproduced asexually
using the various cloning techniques, genetic engineering, etc.).
Perhaps the most daring, and most successful, "pre-embryo substitute"
was concocted by human cloning and human embryonic stem cell researchers
Irving Weissman, Michael West, et al. While the McCormick/Grobstein
"pre-embryo" at least acknowledged that the immediate product of
fertilization is a human being (it is just not a human person), for
these researchers the immediate product of both sexual and asexual human
reproduction is "just a cell" - not a human being, not a human organism,
not a human embryo. And the "blastocyst" from which "stem cells" are
derived is simply "a ball of cells". These researchers also concocted
another way to get rid of the human embryo - in fact, they got rid of
the human embryo and the human fetus - by making a false distinction
between "therapeutic" and "reproductive" cloning. They claimed that the
product of "therapeutic cloning" was just a bunch of cells; the product
of "reproductive cloning" was a human being - but not until it was born!
They also enjoyed defining "cloning" /only /in terms of somatic cell
nuclear transfer (SCNT) - thus making all of the other dozens of kinds
of human cloning techniques disappear.
Or, one can make other kinds of cloning techniques "disappear"
linguistically by including in one definition what is really part of
another cloning technique that they want to divert attention from. For
example, it has been claimed that the product of SCNT is an "identical
twin" of the donor (which is erroneous because of the "foreign"
mitochondrial DNA left over in the enucleated oocyte used). But the real
product of SCNT or GLNT (germ line nuclear transfer) is thus genetically
unique (which has serious implications for patients when injecting them
with "stem cells" from such cloned embryos - even if the donor cell is
from the same patient). But by using the term "identical twin", the
writers thus conflate the SCNT cloning technique with the "twinning"
technique (i.e., blastomere separation, blastocyst splitting, embryo
multiplication, etc.) - used now for many years in IVF/ART as
"infertility treatments". Thus to the "average" reader, SCNT and
"twinning" are the same.
Indeed, such "pre-embryos" and "pre-embryo substitutes" as noted above
are particularly useful in laws and regulations involving the early
human embryo, because often such innovatice and imaginative but false
scientific terms used in legal definitions are legally "exclusionary" -
and thus create useful legal loopholes. It's enough to make our
collective heads spin!
Yet very few on either side of the aisles have been paying attention -
for several decades now.
4. Correct Formation of Conscience
As noted, this linguistic abuse of language concerning the early human
embryo is an on-going concern, and ever new, inventive and imaginative
"pre-embryo substitutes" appear almost on a daily basis. This is why it
is important to be aware of and acknowledge the long-established and
documented empirical facts of human embryology, for before long we will
not even be able to define scientifically that point in time when we
should start "safeguarding life from its very beginning". The scientific
terms or concepts that we use will have lost all meaning and
relationship to reality.
*And as Pope John Paul II has also warned, these linguistic twists of
scientific terms and concepts have already had a devastating effect on
the correct formation of conscience:*
The end result of this is tragic: not only is the fact of the
destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their
final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and
disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were
by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly
difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the
basic value of human life. ... [W]e need now more than ever to have
the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their
proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the
temptation of self-deception. ... Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon
is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has
the power to change the reality of things. (Pope John Paul II,
Evangelium vitae 1995, pars. 4 and 58).
Hopefully the long-known, long-documented and continuously updated
accurate empirical starting point for determining when a human being
begins to exist - such as those found in the Carnegie Stages and
incorporated in professionally responsible human embryology and related
scientific textbooks -- will not be abandoned by professionals in the
field of human embryology. Nothing but utter chaos would ensue. But
perhaps that is the goal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more detailed scientific and philosophical references, see
Irving [most of these are also available at www.pfli.org]:
* "Human Embryology and Church Teachings"
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/em/em_132embryologychurch1.html>(September
15, 2008)
* "The Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development: Chart
of all 23 Stages, and Detailed Descriptions of Carnegie Stages 1 -
6"
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_123carnegiestages2.html>(April
22, 2006)
* "Framing the Debates on Human Cloning and Human Embryonic Stem
Cells: Pluripotent vs. TOTIPOTENT"
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_100debatecloning1.html>(July
23, 2005)
* "Definitions of a "human organism" and a "human cell"
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_78definitions.html>(Oct.
3, 2004)
* "What Human Embryo? Funniest Mental Gymnastics from Medicine and
Research"
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_82whathumanembryo1.html>(Oct.
14, 2004)
* "Analysis of Legislative and Regulatory Chaos in the U.S.: Asexual
Human Reproduction and Genetic Engineering"
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_81chaosasexgen1.html>(Oct.
20, 2004)
* "The Impact of 'Scientific Misinformation' on Other Fields:
Philosophy, Theology, Biomedical Ethics, Public Policy"
<http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_124misinformation1.html>,
Accountability in Research, April 1993, 2(4):243-272
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PFLI PharmAid Center
pfli at pfli.org <mailto:pfli at pfli.org>
PO Box 1281
Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA
800-227-8359
www.pfli.org
PFLI supports pharmacist rights of conscience NOT to be forced to
dispense or counsel for chemicals which violate their sincerely held
religious, moral or ethical beliefs. For more info see:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
*** PFLI is the only pharmacy association which is exclusively pro-life.
It represents thousands of pharmacists and many lay supporters
in the USA, Canada and all around the globe. For membership info, key
PFLI texts, PFLI archives, late-breaking news, abridged newsletter excerpts
or general information, visit the PFLI web site at http://www.pfli.org.
Or e-mail us at mailto:pfli at pfli.org.
*** We do NOT send out SPAM. To subscribe to PharmFacts E-News, just
send an e-mail with the word
"subscribe" in the subject area or better yet, just enroll right from
our main news page at
http://www.pfli.org; to cease your subscription [although we can't
imagine anyone would!] self-manage your account at:
http://pfli.org/mailman/listinfo/pflienews_pfli.org
*** You may contact PFLI at any/all of the following: Pharmacists For
Life International,
PO Box 1281, Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA, 1-800-227-8359 [US & Canada only],
+1-740-881-5520 [voice] or +1-707-667-2447 [fax]; e-mail us at
mailto:pfli at pfli.org.
*** You can order our publications as well as begin/renew your
membership or donate right on our
secure website at http://www.pfli.org/shop <http://www.pfli.org>. Click
on the "PFLI Store" link on the toolbar and
follow the prompts! There you can also donate to PFLI as well as
purchase a wide range of publications.
* *
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20090615/483c5dc0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 78028 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20090615/483c5dc0/attachment-0002.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2923 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20090615/483c5dc0/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11831 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20090615/483c5dc0/attachment-0003.jpe>
More information about the PFLIENews
mailing list