McGee Glenn, Caplan Arthur
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1999 Jun;9(2):151-8. doi: 10.1353/ken.1999.0012.
Pluripotent human stem cell research may offer new treatments for hundreds of diseases, but opponents of this research argue that such therapy comes attached to a Faustian bargain: cures at the cost of the destruction of many frozen embryos. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), government officials, and many scholars of bioethics, including, in these pages, John Robertson, have not offered an adequate response to ethical objections to stem cell research. Instead of examining the ethical issues involved in sacrificing human embryos for the goal of curing fatal and disabling diseases, they seek to either dismiss the moral concerns of those with objections or to find an "accomodation" with those opposed to stem cell research. An ethical argument can be made that it is justifiable to modify or destroy certain human embryos in the pursuit of cures for dread and lethal diseases. Until this argument is made, the case for stem cell research will rest on political foundations rather than on the ethical foundations that the funding of stem cell research requires.
多能性人类干细胞研究可能为数百种疾病提供新的治疗方法，但这项研究的反对者认为，这种疗法伴随着一种浮士德式的交易：以牺牲许多冷冻胚胎为代价来换取治愈方法。国家生物伦理咨询委员会（NBAC）、政府官员以及许多生物伦理学者，包括在本刊发表文章的约翰·罗伯逊，都没有对干细胞研究的伦理反对意见做出充分回应。他们没有审视为了治愈致命和致残疾病而牺牲人类胚胎所涉及的伦理问题，而是要么试图驳回反对者的道德关切，要么寻求与反对干细胞研究的人达成“和解”。从伦理角度可以论证，为了寻找治疗可怕和致命疾病的方法而对某些人类胚胎进行修改或破坏是合理的。在这个论点被提出之前，干细胞研究的理由将基于政治基础，而不是基于干细胞研究资金所需要的伦理基础。
