Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Missing the meaning: A response to John Burn
- David A Jones (16 May 2008)
-
The soul is suprascientific
- Felix ID Konotey-Ahulu (16 May 2008)
-
No souls in cord blood
- Josephine M Quintavalle (16 May 2008)
-
This is not just a Catholic argument
- Andrew Fergusson (16 May 2008)
-
Rationality or pragmatism in embryo research?
- Ronald J Clearkin (17 May 2008)
-
The soul of the cell
- John H Scotson (17 May 2008)
-
We have lost our fear
- Roger K.A. . Allen (17 May 2008)
-
A crafty argument
- Gonzalo Herranz (17 May 2008)
-
Can a cell have a soul?
- DR MATTHEW THALANANY (17 May 2008)
-
Focusing on souls, forgetting the genes
- Peter H Millard (20 May 2008)
-
Science Doesn't Explain
- Mary L Haasch (20 May 2008)
-
A solution to the quandary
- Iris P. Gonzalez (21 May 2008)
-
In dubio pro securitate
- Barbara Osimani (21 May 2008)
-
Cells do not have souls.
- Alexander SD Spiers (22 May 2008)
-
Re: In dubio pro securitate
- Micahel A Clarke (22 May 2008)
-
Pragmatic precision
- Helen P Watt (22 May 2008)
-
Re: A crafty argument
- John Burn (24 May 2008)
-
Re: Missing the meaning: A response to John Burn
- John Burn (24 May 2008)
-
The life of the soul and the life of a cell.
- Phillip Marzella, Fiztory, Australia VIC 3049 (26 May 2008)
-
A cell cannot have a soul - science or faith?
- David JR Hutchon (28 May 2008)
-
A comment on: Can a cell have a soul?
- Shoma Berkemeyer, Klinik für Altersmedizin u. Fruehrehabilitation, Widumer Strasse 8, 44627 Herne, Germany (29 July 2008)
|
|
|||
|
David A Jones, Professor of Bioethics St Mary's University College, Twickenham TW1 4SX
Send response to journal:
|
Professor Burn does not have a strong grasp of his Church history. The Bull of Convocation Aeterni Patris was promulgated on 29 June 1868, the year before the Vatican Council, not in 1869. Neither the Bull nor the Council asserts that ‘as a precautionary principle, life should be considered to commence at conception’. Professor Burn is perhaps conflating the Bull with Constitution Apostolicae Sedes of 12 October 1869, which rescinded the distinction between animated and non-animated foetus in the canon law on abortion, overturning the legislation of Pope Gregory XIV and returning to the policy of Pope Sixtus V. This technical legal change did not amount to a declaration that the soul was given at conception, nor did it alter the moral evaluation of abortion. Professor Burn also asserts that Benedict XVI has ‘declared that ensoulment might occur at conception’. He gives no reference to an encyclical or any other document where this declaration is made. As far as I am aware no pope has ever ‘declared’, as pope, that ensoulment happens at conception, nor indeed that it happens later. Nevertheless, all popes, as far as I am aware, have held and believed that the deliberate destruction of the embryo at any stage of development is a grave sin. In this respect at least, Catholic teaching has not changed. It is well expressed by the Second Vatican Council, ‘from the moment of its conception (a conceptione) life must be guarded with the greatest care’ (Gaudium et Spes 51). The meaning of the word ‘conception’ here, as indeed the meaning of words generally, is not to be derived from ancient etymology but from customary use. The word conception has long been used in the Catholic tradition to mean the beginning of existence of the embryo at fertilisation. It is of course true that in society and among scientists and politicians there are deep differences as to the proper moral status of the early embryo but there is widespread agreement that human development begins at fertilisation. This is implicitly acknowledged in Professor Hunt’s reference to implantation at ‘five days’ or to development of the primitive steak after ‘14 days’. ‘14 days’ after what? After fertilisation. Professor Burn also seems to imply that the Catholic Church was among those who at some point opposed 'cadaver organ donation'. In fact, even before the procedure was routine, Pius XII accepted it as legitimate in principle (Allocution to a Group of Eye Specialists, 14 May 1956). The Church has never forbidden autopsy for scientific or forensic reasons. Furthermore, Mendel, the very founding father of the science of genetics, was a Catholic priest. The Church is in favour of scientific innovation, just as long as it is pursed in an ethical manner. Embryo research is objectionable not because it is new or yucky, but because it destroys human embryos. It should be noticed that the description Professor Hunt gives of cow-hybrid embryos is contentious at best. He implies that these are not really embryos and states that the stem cells produced are ‘adult stem cells’. If this were true it would be odd that the law needs to prohibit so very clearly the implanting of such embryos in a woman or in an animal. This is surely forbidden because these embryos may have the capacity to develop in the womb. Most scientists describe these embryos as ‘99.9% human’ or as ‘categorically human’. From an ethical point of view, a human-cow hybrid should probably be regarded as a cloned human embryo that has been created using a transplant from a cow. If these would be human embryos then they should not be created for use in experiments. In contrast ‘induced pluripotent stem cells’ are not embryos. No scientist or legal system calls them embryos. They do not raise the same ethical or theological problems as human embryos. Professor Burn states that ‘a cell does not have a soul’. In a modern context where people can hardly make sense of an adult having a soul, soul -talk is almost inevitably misleading, and to use it casually is to caricature. Clearly Professor Burn does not see the profound significance of the human embryo, which is what invites respect. Others do see this significance. In general, it is unwise to boast of failing to see something. Professor David A Jones
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Felix ID Konotey-Ahulu, Kwegyir Aggrey Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics, Universty of Cape Coast, Ghana Consultant Physician Genetic Counsellor in Haemoglobinopathies, 10 Harley Street, London W1G 9PF
Send response to journal:
|
The soul is suprascientific In his genuine attempt at clarification clinical geneticist Professor John Burn [1] has rushed to details before tackling principles, thereby missing the wood for genetic trees [2]. Fog rather than light is what he leaves behind when he attempts to link ‘cell’ and ‘soul’. The confusion manifests itself in at least 3 ways. First, Professor Burn fails to point out that there is no scientific definition of ‘a soul’. The question: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” [3], is quite unfathomable in scientific terms. Such questions belong to what I once called “the suprascientific” [4] because there is a dimension to man (the spiritual) which Science has no tools to fathom [5]. Even Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Medawar, with no faith pretensions, recognises that Science has limits [6]. Secondly, Professor Burn does not make it clear (though I am sure he believes it) that something may be legal (Parliament says it is) when it is clearly not ethical. Legality and ethics are quite different things [2], and what is ethical to one person may be unethical to another though they may both have the same academic qualifications and belong to the same Ethics Committee. Thirdly, to make Science (whichever way you define it) the arbiter of human behaviour in the laboratory or elsewhere is to court disaster. “The HFEA has access to all the necessary expertise and can reach reasoned conclusions” is Professor Burn’s candid opinion which others also, with “all the necessary expertise”, are capable of challenging on grounds of reason and common sense. And to discount the opinion of other people simply because they are ‘Roman Catholics’ or ‘Tabloid Editors’ is totally unfair. William Rees-Mogg (Lord) who voted in The House of Lords on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in 1990, and again this year, is a man with enormous common sense and wisdom, who speaks for the great majority of people in the UK (not just ‘Roman Catholics’) when, in relation to embryo research, he asks the question: “Whatever happened to the ‘yuk’ factor?” [7] Felix I D Konotey-Ahulu MD(Lond) FRCP DTMH Kwegyir Aggrey Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics, University of Cape Coast, Ghana and Consultant Physician/Genetic Counsellor Haemoglobinopathy, 10 Harley St., London W1G 9PF felix@konotey-ahulu.com Competing interests: I am a staunch believer in The LORD JESUS CHRIST. 1 Burn J. Can a cell have a soul? BMJ 2008; 336: 1132 (17 May) 2 Konotey-Ahulu FID. Missing the wood for one genetic tree? In The First International Symposium on the Role of Recombinant DNA in Genetics – Proceedings, Chania, Crete, Greece May 13-16 1985. Editors Loukopoulos D, Teplitz RL; Athens, P. Paschalidis 1986, pages 105-116. 3 St Mark Chapter 8 verses 36 & 37 and St Matthew Chapter 16 verse 26. 4 Konotey-Ahulu FID. The suprascientific in clinical medicine: a challenge for Professor Know-All. BMJ 2001; 323: 1452-53 (22 -29 Dec) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7327/1452 5 Konotey-Ahulu FID. The spiritual and the psychological in clinical medicine. BMJ 1977; 1: 1595 6 Medawar P. The Limits of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. 7 Rees-Mogg W. Whatever happened to the ‘yuk’ factor? The Times 2008, March 24 page 17. Competing interests: I am a staunch believer in THE LORD JESUS CHRIST |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Josephine M Quintavalle, Director Comment on Reproductive Ethics
Send response to journal:
|
I am surprised that Professor John Burn introduces his comment by referring exclusively to the more controversial stem cell research at Newcastle University. Having just returned from an exhilarating conference in Paris for the launch of an international research consortium (Novussanguis) on cell regeneration using cord blood and adult stem cells (which unquestionably do not have souls and unquestionably provide therapeutic cures), I think it a pity that Professor Burn did not take some small credit for that as well. This consortium was brought together by the Jerome Lejeune Foundation in Paris and Professor McGuckin and his team from Newcastle University. Professor McGuckin is an acknowledged world leader in the field of cord blood stem cell science and brings great credit to the University behind him with the research he is directing. The 200 delegates at the launch came from across the world, bringing together exciting news of ever more beneficial developments in this area of regenerative medicine. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andrew Fergusson, Head of Communications, Christian Medical Fellowship 6 Marshalsea Road, London SE1 1HL
Send response to journal:
|
Professor Burn writes as one 'raised in the Christian tradition' and then comments specifically on Roman Catholic historical perspectives. Professor Jones objects powerfully from the Catholic tradition, and makes strongly the simple point that the human embryo is a human being worthy of far more respect and protection than the law currently affords. Christian Medical Fellowship is interdenominational and largely Protestant. Its 4,500 doctor members and 1,100 medical student members 'accept the Bible as the supreme authority in matters of faith and conduct'. Theologically we believe that we are not bodies which have souls, nor souls which have bodies, but that holistically we are all ensouled bodies and embodied souls. Further, many members recognise a principle of continuity which means that God knew us from our very beginning - for example, Jeremiah 1:5 states 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you'. Whilst agreeing that 'soul talk' may not be particularly helpful in the ethical debate, many members see Biblical authority for the view that the single cell human embryo (once fertilisation is complete) is a new human individual with immense significance. This is therefore not just a Catholic argument, but one where the conservative position has wider support in the Christian church. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ronald J Clearkin, Cons Physician Leics LE16 8EL
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir or Madam How is one to reconcile Professor Burn's claim to dispassion in the area of embryo research with his immediately following statement of interest?(1) Unfortunately this early and simple contradiction seems to set the tone for the remainder of the article which contains a series of errors of fact and of interpretation (2). At the end of his article, Burn seems to criticise the definition of death based on cessation of cardiac action and breathing by claiming that it is based on biblical interpretation, ignoring the fact that as a definition of death it was widely accepted by many cultures including those unfamiliar with the Bible. Furthermore, as a definition it had the virtue at least of a high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of death, yet Burn prefers to appeal instead to a "rational" and "pragmatic precision" in the determination of death, something he seems to believe now exists. If by this he means the 20 or more definitions of "Brain Death" so far proposed in the last fifty years, these offer little support to any purported rationality but say much about pragmatism, "precision" having been abandoned somewhere along the way. It is sad that the debate over embryonic stem cell research, as Professor Burn's article makes clear, is seriously afflicted by the eclipse of rationality by an extreme pragmatism. It is also regrettable that spurious arguments such as those advanced in this article seem designed merely to perpetuate a mythical antithesis of faith and reason. Yours faithfully Ronald J Clearkin (1) Burn J. Can a cell have a soul? BMJ 2008;336:1132 (2) Jones D A. Missing the meaning: A response to John Burn. BMJ Rapid Responses 16 May 2008 (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/336/7653/1132#195521) Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John H Scotson, Retired GP WA14 2AN
Send response to journal:
|
“A cell cannot have a soul” according to Professor John Burn. However Saint Thomas Aquinas maintains that a soul “ is the life principle in a living body.” The human cell following conception is certainly living and certainly human. It contains a complete human genetic code and can only become what it already is a human being and therefore worthy of respect. Two feasts are important in the calendar of the church because they mark the beginning of two lives: that of Christ at the time of the Annunciation and of his mother whose feast is marked as the beginning of a life free from sin. – the feast known as “The Immaculate Conception.” In both cases we celebrate the event of conception. There is obviously a unity between the one conceived and the fully developed adult. The soul is the life giving principle through all stages of existence Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Roger K.A. . Allen, Senior Consultant Thoracic and Sleep Physician Wesley Medical Centre, Auchenflower, Brisbane, Australia
Send response to journal:
|
The aboriginal people of the Kimberley in north-west Australia have had a spiritual connection with the land and the cosmos for about 50,000 years and can tell us recent pragmatic and reductionist Europeans a thing or two about life. Integral to their view of the world is the Wandjina which is the spirit which not only brings the rain but also brings life. They recognized that sexual intercourse was a prerequisite for conception but that something magic also was required to have a baby and this was the gift of the Wandjina. This is reflected in their ancient and modern day art. They like other "native" people hold a spiritual connection to every part of the land in which lives the same spirit force of life. They do not possess our lack of utilitarian detachment about the land on which we live and which we blithly sell, develop and mutilate and which we call "real estate" and subdivide into suburban blocks with fences around them. We are turning the wonder of conception into another real estate domain to "muck up",mutilate, "develop", profit from and so on. "Modern" man I believe has lost the sense of "magic" and is paying for it. We abide in the desert of pragmatism, a despoiled planet, with lost faith, and a lost spiritual dimension to life. What is man without that intangible dimension of the spirit? What is faith, hope and love if not spiritual? The essence of life has been converted into a concrete parking lot under the guise of "science", "progress" and altruistic motives and even worse, a brave new world order. We are playing with a fire which may yet be our downfall. Pandora's box has been opened. This debate is not just a Christian one or a case of splitting hairs about a matter of ethics. The aborigenes feared the power of the Wandjinas. We have lost that fear and that is what I fear most. Competing interests: I am a member of the Anglican Church of Australia. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Gonzalo Herranz, Honorary Professor Department of Biomedical Humanities, School of Medicine, University Of Navarra. 31080 Pamplona, Spai
Send response to journal:
|
Professor John Burn’s Personal View (BMJ 2008;336:1132) invites some dispassionate comments. As a pathologist and medical ethicist, and a follower of the Christian tradition, I must also declare a deep interest: my hope of seeing the early human embryo set free from a number of apparently scientific, but unfounded, attributes contrived to weaken its status. One of those statements, not based in evidence but sadly evolved into unquestioned “fact”, is adduced by Prof. Burn to prove that human embryos cannot exist before the end of the second week of gestation: the possibility of twinning until the primitive streak is formed around the 14th day of development. For many years, I hold for certain the chronology of monozygotic twinning prevailing uncontested in the medical literature. Text-books and journals repeat with amusing uniformity and not less amusing small variants, the relationship between the structure (chorionicity and amnionicity) of fetal membranes and the timing of twinning. Such an uncommon monopoly of understanding encouraged my scientific curiosity to seek by who and how such relationship was factually demonstrated. The search for an answer led me to read old and recent books and journals: a fruitless, but absorbing, task. My provisional conclusion is the following: It is not known for sure when and how monozygotic twinning in the human occurs. What authors repeat once and again is just a more ornamented, but not less hypothetic, version of a model devised by G. W. Corner1. At the conclusion of his 1922 article he permitted himself “to indulge in a brief speculation regarding the morphogenesis of human monochorionic twins as suggested by our studies of polyembryony in the pig”. In more than 80 years, no fundamental change has been introduced in the concept and diagram offered by Corner. Therefore, the 14-day term assigned to the occurrence of monozygotic twinning in the human is lacking of empirical support. In fact, this concept is a crafty argument and a hypothesis never verified. As such, it is too weak to support any legislation or clinical practice involving the destruction of human embryos. 1. Corner GW. The Morphological Theory of Monochorionic Twins as Illustrated by a Series of Supposed Early Twin Embryos of the Pig. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 1922;33:389-392. Gonzalo Herranz, Honorary Professor of Pathology and Medical Ethics, Department of Biomedical Humanities, School of Medicine, University of Navarra, 31080 Pamplona, Spain. gherranz@unav.es Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
DR MATTHEW THALANANY, Doctor of Medicine COLCHESTER, UK
Send response to journal:
|
Sir, The general public and patient lobby groups are being misled on the value of embryo stem cell research Professor Burn, and other supporters of embryo stem cell research, need to ask themselves as to why they are so hell bent on pursuing this particular route of research when to date it has yielded nothing, but nothing, that can be called clinically effective or cost effective. On the other hand, not only are adult stem cells and cord stem cells already in therapeutic use; more gainful research results are coming through at a rapid pace. Why insist on going down a route that is so morally and ethically offensive to so many different communities in this country when there are safer, clinically effective and ethically non-controversial alternatives avaliable? Now, let’s not get this wrong - this is not just some cranky Christian notion. There are Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims opposed to this just as much as the Christian denominations. And it doesn’t stop there. People with no particular religious faith have also protested - because they believe that that this is fundamentally wrong and violates the secular codes of morals and ethics. You simply cannot use a feeble and disingenuous excuse of wanting to do good by actually doing wrong. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter H Millard, Emeritus Professor Geriatrics St George's University of London
Send response to journal:
|
Editor So far the pro's and con's of the Human Embryology Act have been considered in societal values, and much of the criticism against change has been directed against the Catholic Church. John Burn, Professor of Clinical Genetics, Newcastle argues that a cell cannot have a soul when it's only fourteen days old. But that misses the point. Naturally, from conception to death our genes control our bodily function. Tamper with them and nobody knows what will happen. What we do know is that IVF is not cost neutral both financially and biologically, and children born by IVF are twice as likely to have structural, chromosomal and genetic abnormalities. Indeed, the more intrusive the fertilization the greater the risk. What a tragedy it would be if by interfering with the natural autopoetic processes of conception and early embryonic growth, rather than solving the problem of mitochondrial diseases in children and adults we created them. Competing interests: Lobbyist for services for older people and pro-life causes |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mary L Haasch, NRC Res. Assoc. Sr. Scientist Duluth, MN 55804
Send response to journal:
|
I agree with the science that indicates a delay of when a fertilized egg could obtain a soul but the science doesn't explain how I knew a new life had been formed within me just minutes after conception. Unfortunately, because I believe that stem cell research holds great promise, I must be a witness that a cell has a soul. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Iris P. Gonzalez, Director Student Health Services Washburn University Topeka KS USA
Send response to journal:
|
IF you believe that a fertilized ovum has a soul, DON'T participate in research or other activity that you feel violates the rights of embryos. IF you do NOT believe this, you may do what you want to embryos, human or otherwise. These matters are the kind that require potential participants to search within themselves and explore their values, that they may arrive at a policy guiding THEIR behavior. However, I cannot accept that OTHERS' beliefs (whether derived from their faith or from other value systems) should limit what _I_ personally may do, as long as this activity does not cause suffering. My personal belief is that the cow that you ate for dinner yesterday is more conscious, capable of suffering, and deserving of consideration than a small mass of cells, human or otherwise. Be that as it may, I do NOT picket steak houses; nor will I require my colleagues to conduct research activities that they personally find wrong or otherwise objectionable. I only wish these same people would reciprocate and not try to impose their values on me. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Barbara Osimani, Research Assistant University of Lugano, Institute of Communication and Health barbara.osimani@lu.unisi.ch
Send response to journal:
|
Prof. Burn seems to equate human dignity with the presence of the soul, and, even if this would be ultimately agreed upon by the christians themselves, still, to my view, the notion of human dignity must go beyond and be separated from that of the existence of the soul, because the latter is a debated question, whereas the former is a fundament of human societies. On the basis of this distinction, one should recognize that what is at stake in the issue of embryo stem cell research is therefore not when the soul enters the embryo, but whether the embryo has human dignity or not. Because this is not a scientific question, and because the uncertainty around it cannot possibly be eliminated through experimental research, the best we can do is to draw upon logical-methodological instruments for dealing with uncertainty. In the legal theory, the principle of "in dubio pro securitate" (in doubt for safety: the so called "precautionary principle") says that, one should opt for the safest alternative when in doubt about the real state of affairs. This principle applies proportionally to the value assigned to the good in question: the higher is the good, the safer should be the conduct. More importantly, it is also a principle which priscribes to opt for the alternative which warrants safety for the higher good among two conflicting ones, when no compromise is possible. In the specific case of embryo stem cell research, the conflicting goods are human dignity on one side and scientific research and therapeutic progresses on the other. No doubt, which of the two sides has higher status. Because of this higher status, even if there is no consensus about the real state of affairs (doubt), the legislator should opt, according to the precautionary principle, for the hypothesis which guarantees protection of this higher good, i.e. according to the presumption that the embryo HAS human dignity. Indeed I would say that the good at stakes are human life (beyond human dignity) against freedom of research and therapeutic progress. But I referred to human dignity, because this was the point of Burn's argument, and also because the line of the argument would not change. Competing interests: I am roman catholic |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alexander SD Spiers, Professor of Medicine (retired) N/A.
Send response to journal:
|
Professor Burn is to be complimented for writing a contribution that is clear and nonpolemical about a subject that is mired in controversy, media hype, personal angst, and theological dispute. To attempt to assign a physical location to the human soul, which presumably is not a physical object, is ludicrous. The heart, the head, the pineal gland and other sites have been nominated, on no good evidence. The body may possess a soul, but surely does not contain it. If it did, how could the soul be immortal? It is even more unlikely that a single cell can possess, much less contain, a soul. The abortion of viable human embryos is morally unacceptable to a great many people. But when an abortion has been performed, surely it is not a heinous crime to use the embryo in scientific research intended to save and enhance lives. Fortunately, science has moved on, and the need for abortuses in research is greatly diminished or disappearing. Cells from umbilical cord blood, adult stem cells, and the nuclei of human skin cells incubated by enucleated bovine ova, make it possible to carry out stem cell research with no possibility of destroying a human life or rendering a human soul homeless. The media hype about cow-human hybrids is reminiscent of the 19th- century furore about vaccination. What a shame that John Burn's article appears only in a scientific journal. It should appear in the tabloids as well. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Micahel A Clarke, Paediatric Neurologist Leeds General Infirmary LS2 9NS
Send response to journal:
|
Sir, It would have been helpful if Prof.Burn had said what he thinks "personhood" is.the implication is that there is some relationship between "ensoulment" i.e.having a soul and personhood. personhood is usually defined in terms of self-awareness and relationship to others. Does a profoundly handicapped child without apparent awareness have personhood and a soul, does a severely demented elderly person have personhood and a soul or can we be "pragmatic" about this as Prof.Burn suggests. Where will that view take medicine and humanity? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Helen P Watt, Director Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics NW8 9SE
Send response to journal:
|
John Burn [1] calls for ‘pragmatic precision’ in our definition of the origin of the human individual. His own thinking on the subject is, however, rather more pragmatic than precise. Yes, the embryo is ‘the size of a sugar grain’: just how is that relevant to its status? Yes, the embryo has an inner cell mass, and an outer part used to form a temporary organ – the placenta. What is the relevance of that? Are we surprised that living individuals look different at different stages of their lives? Or do we think that they must must look like adult humans to deserve our serious respect? Yes, the embryo may produce one or more twin siblings – but how is that relevant? John Burn could himself be cloned: is he therefore not a human individual, just because his cells could be used to create new human individuals? Fertilisation is merely one way of creating an organism; twinning and cell nuclear transfer are two others, as John Burn’s own research confirms. Before this happens, sperm, egg and somatic cell are living parts, not living wholes. I will leave it to others to discuss, in an accurate and scholarly fashion, the history of theology and embryology. [2][3] In 2008, there is little excuse for doubt on the question of human origins. One does not need to be a theologian to recognise an embryo as a genuine human organism: a human with the same objective interests in its future [4] as the more familiar child it may become. [1] Burn J. Can a cell have a soul? BMJ 2008; 336: 1132. [2] Jones D. The Soul of the Embryo. London, New York: Continuum, 2004. [3] Connery S. Abortion: the Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1977. [4] Watt H. Life and Death in Healthcare Ethics. London: Routledge, 2000. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Burn, professor of Clinical Genetics newcastle University
Send response to journal:
|
I used the term "pragmatic precision" to describe the 14 day limit because it might be argued that the cellular decisions to initiate a primitive streak must predate its physical appearance. I am less concerned about the relationship of twinning to the 14 day limit. I spent many years working in the field of twin research (see for example my chapter on monozygotic twins Chamberlain D Contemprary Obstetrics and Gynaecology Butterworths London 1988;10:161-176). You overlook two key points; embryologists now have extensive experience of examining human zygotes generated in vitro and following these through the early morphological changes. The timing of blastocyst development and the later development of the amnion are well documented. All conjoined twins are monoamniotic and all are joined by matching anatomical parts which supports the interpretation that they result from incomplete fission after the formation of the amnion. The relatively uniform incidence of monozygotic twinning in different ethnic groups and the relative frequency of dichorionic, monochorionic, monoamniotic and conjoined twins provides very strong support for a stochastic event with declining propensity to multiple pregnancy over the first two weeks of development. Competing interests: author of the personal view |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Burn, Professor of Clinical Genetics Newcastle University
Send response to journal:
|
I am grateful for the correction to the misprinted date and for clarifying the historical events; the Bull of Convocation of the First Vatican Council, "Æterni Patris", was promulgated on 29 June, 1868 not 1869; it appointed the 8th of December 1869 as the date for the opening of the Council. According to the Catholic Guide, the objects of the Council were to be the correction of modern errors and a seasonable revision of the legislation of the Church. I was indeed alluding to the Constitution Apostolicae Sedes, which rescinded the distinction between animated and non-animated foetus in the canon law on abortion. I hesitate to enter into further historical debate but I can find at least one example of a pope ruling on the issue; in 1211, Pope Innocent III issued the decree Sicut ex, which limited the irregularity incurred from abortion to abortions involving a fetus that was not "animated" or "ensouled." He reportedly chose “quickening” , 16 weeks, as the time for the event of ensoulment. My purpose in entering the unfamiliar world of religious history is simply to draw attention to the fact that this has been a contentious area for thousands of years. Clearly, in our current state of knowledge, the fertilisation of a human egg by a sperm is a profound process but it is reasonable to argue that it is only one of many processes involved in creating a new human being. Moreover, the ability to alter gene expression and restore pluripotentiality to a mature cell, whether by insertion of gene constructs or addition of cow egg cytoplasm, forces us to examine critically the issue of the “human potential” of a group of cells. Cells are now being identified in cancers which display embryonic features. Passing laws precluding their introduction into a woman’s uterus does not imply that legislators regard such cancer cells as new human individuals. Professor Jones suggests I fail to see the profound significance of the human embryo. On the contrary, having spent my working life with families afflicted by genetic diseases, often joining them on a long and stressful journey through their efforts to achieve parenthood, I have seen at first hand how precious a zygote can be. I have also seen the curative power of stem cells. We owe it to future generations to find a path which protects, in all senses, human life. Competing interests: author of the personal view |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Phillip Marzella, COO Bernard O'Brien Institute of Microsurgery, Fiztory, Australia VIC 3049
Send response to journal:
|
I personally have great difficulties with both arguments – we are trying to counter science with faith – and faith with science. Life as defined by biology is different from (spiritual) life as defined by faith. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David JR Hutchon, Consultant Obstetrician Memorial Hospital, Darlington. DL3 6HX
Send response to journal:
|
Professor Burn has argued from a rational viewpoint while at the same time showing he has a Christian faith. It is often considered that science and religious faith are quite different ways of thinking. That science requires no faith and faith does not rely on scientific proof. Medical practice is based on a bit of science and a bit of faith although perhaps genetics is more scientific than many other branches of medicine. We are told science does not rely on faith. Well only in as much as one has to have faith that those reporting the science have been honest. And that the scientific foundation used by the investigators was also based on honest science. The scientific method relies on the fact that it is a rational extension of what is already “known” and the hypothesis tested using the scientific method. Faith is required by those carrying out the experiment and by those who subsequently believe and use the results. So science is completely reliant on faith! I challenge anyone to prove for themselves any simple scientific “fact” without making assumptions and providing proof that the current scientific explanation is indeed correct and the only possible explanation. For example try to prove the law of gravity and show that this is the only explanation for the apple falling to the ground and the earth circling the sun. I doubt even the most intelligent of people would be able to make sufficient personal observations (without using any instruments that they had not made themselves) to reach this conclusion and to be sure that there was no other explanation. This is a much simpler concept than that of the soul. Indeed while I feel I have a soul I cannot be sure that Professor Burn has a soul or indeed any other individual. I have to assume that because Professor Burn looks a little like me and the rest of the human race and acts like me and the rest of the human race, he like everyone else also has a soul. To help to provide pragmatic rules, Christians have tried to logically work out when the soul enters the body. There can be no scientific proof or logic in providing this remarkable moment. In this we have to act within our conscience. However this brings me back to the beginning as I realise that conscience is simply “with knowledge”. So our conscience depends on what we have been told and what we believe.
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Shoma Berkemeyer, research scientist Ruhr-Universitaet Bochum, Klinik für Altersmedizin u. Fruehrehabilitation, Widumer Strasse 8, 44627 Herne, Germany
Send response to journal:
|
Thank you to the BMJ for offering a read on if a cell can have a soul. The author supports his view point that a cell does not have a soul grounding evidence on two main arguments. Based on the Catholic definition of ensoulment from point of conception on, the author argues that conception does not really occur with fertilization of gametes but after five days of it when the blastocyte is “taken in” (concipere) in the uterus. It is to infer that the five days is perhaps without ensoulment. The second argument is based on, that non gamete cells have been recently shown to also develop into embryos. Thus, perhaps, these embryos also have ensoulment? As an example since a Catholic University endorses and works with adult stem cells, which hitherto were without ensoulment potential, with latest research to the contrary. This perhaps offers a caveat on gamete cells having special status in conception and resulting ensoulment which perhaps be required to be put into perspective. Finally the author mentions there was a time when organ donation or cadaver research was a taboo just cell ensoulment is one today. What the author has not mentioned is that organ donation and cadaver research for certain religions is still a taboo inspite of the scientific knowledge on the issue. That perhaps is the privilege of religion just as it is the privilege of science in scientific enquiry. Hence, all the more a requirement to regard the issue from human ethics point of view rather than presenting loopholes in Catholic precepts. What is more interesting is to know given cells are living, do all cells have souls? Our concept of animate and inanimate is still relatively intact. In the animate world we have single cells, some even as bacteria. The viruses exist at a level even more rudimentary to single cell. They are all living creatures. Some of them also cause diseases. Now would we be sinning when we take those antibiotics to kill these living micro- organisms? Should this be an ethical question? Since religion has been used to break the case, I will take religion to also make the case. What if having a soul is a function of developing “consciousness of a feeling of right and wrong”? The higher we go up the animal kingdom, greater is the development of this consciousness of right and wrong. Perhaps a bacteria or virus is not thinking that is hurting, perhaps even killing, a human in causing a disease. Perhaps a bacteria is simply existing. This does not stop us in taking antibiotics against the bacteria either. To that extent perhaps a sperm cell or egg cell is also not endowed with consciousness of right and wrong. A dog, on the contrary, perhaps has a greater consciousness of right and wrong compared to a bacteria; e.g., it can be trained “to know” to not steal from the refrigerator. If it does, when it is not supposed to, we admonish or discipline the dog. Thus, dogs are trained. We humans perhaps have the greatest of this consciousness of right and wrong, hence, perhaps in Christian terms deemed “the king of creation”. Perhaps this consciousness is soul. Perhaps then to kill cells which can develop into conscious souls should weigh on our conscience? Thus, rather than determining if a cell has soul or not, possibly we should engage in the discussion if some cells can have ensoulment and consider this in light of basic human ethic of “Thou shall not kill” with or without a formal religion, which is best kept personal. Competing interests: None declared |
|||