Women for Faith and Family has posted a more detailed critique of the proposed Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming (OAR), which has been touted as an ethical alternative to harvesting embryonic stem cells by killing unborn children. The critique is made by Dr. William Burke, a professor of neurology; Fr. Patrick Pullicino, chair of the department of neurology at a New Jersey medical school; and Fr. Edward Richard, a moral theologian at Kenrick Glennon Seminary in St. Louis.
The critique is detailed and scientific and frankly some of it goes just over my head. However, it is enough to raise some serious questions that I hope are answered before we all rush off claiming that OAR is the answer to embryonic stem cell harvesting.
Are the organs of a baby who is born and subsequently dies ever used for organ transplant? If they are, how would that be substantially different from this new technology being discussed?
As I understand it, the scientists do not kill a developing fetus, but rather the nature of the cells themselves is such that death is inevitable.
In the case of a born baby or young child who dies, there is not the possibility of the baby making a decision about organ donation. Someone else would make the decision, so an argument for a free will choice would not be valid.
There is, of course, the question of motivation for conception. It would be a harvesting of cells in the case of the new technology that motivated conception, but it would not be a similar motivation in the case of the baby or child who dies. Apart from motivation for conception, I can’t see any ethical difference between this new technology and organ donation.