Human embryonic stem cells leap the barrier
Author: Jeffrey J Flaherty
Published online: 15 October 2007
To the Editor: I read with interest the editorial by Penington and Mitchell1 in which they briefly discussed the recent legislative developments with regard to human embryonic stem cells. As a medical student, I delight at the complexity and passion that surround the stem cell debate.
How is a student to proceed through this ethical minefield? At the Australian National University, we are taught that international human rights are likely to become more important in professional regulation than classical medical ethics born of the Hippocratic Oath.2 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)3 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)4 are currently used as the cornerstone for building ethical arguments and controversial legislation. However, problems with these international human rights documents include their relevance and applicability to the 21st century. The medical and technological advances made since they were introduced are mind-numbing; I doubt that stem cell research was a consideration when they were drafted.
Both Article 6 of the ICCPR and Article 3 of the UDHR state that every human being has the right to life. An individual’s ethical principles must shape his or her interpretation of this statement. Moreover, ethical argument should not be confused with religious views. Australian society and its belief systems are more than ever moving further away from religion, and medical ethics should incorporate the views of the community at large.
An example of religion and international human rights opposing society’s position is the termination of pregnancy. In Australian medicine there is an ethical obligation to uphold a woman’s right to autonomy and wellbeing, while the exact wording of the ICCPR and UDHR is ignored to achieve a currently socially acceptable outcome. We are seeing a similar rationale with stem cell research, in that there is an ethical responsibility to “the greater good”, regardless of the requirements of the UDHR and ICCPR.
I am a strong supporter of both stem cell research and a woman’s right to choose. I am simply suggesting that we stop looking to international human rights covenants to be the cornerstone of legislation or to answer ethical dilemmas. I just don’t think current international human rights documentation incorporates all the ethical considerations required of modern medicine. A new alternative is just what the medical student ordered.
References
- Penington DG, Mitchell GF. Human embryonic stem cells leap the barrier [editorial]. Med J Aust 2007; 187: 139-140. 0_CBBEGHGB
- Faunce TA. Will international human rights subsume medical ethics? Intersections in the UNESCO Universal Bioethics Declaration. J Med Ethics 2005; 31: 173-178. 0_CBBIEFJI
- United Nations. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Adopted 16 Dec 1966, entered into force 23 Mar 1976. GA Res 2200A (XXI). UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16) 52. UN Doc. A/6316 (1966). UNTS 1966; 999: 17. 0_CBBFHGGC
- United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted 10 Dec 1948. GA Res 217A (III). UN Doc. A/810 (1948) 71. 0_i1091822