Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhism and Science
I've been reading The Universe as a Single Atom by HHDL recently and it has got me thinking about medical research, in particular stem cell research and other similar research areas where human cells are involved. Now I'm absolutely convinced that the potential advances and relief from suffering that can be made from this type of research are enormous, but does that in itself overcome the ethical issues? After all, the cells come from human embryos that are later destroyed. Are these embryos alive in the Buddhist sense? Or did they once have the potential for life, and if so, does that give us the right to destroy potential life for the greater good?
I'm just thinking out loud really and pondering these difficult questions. If anyone has a view or some Buddhist teaching that can shed some light on the subject then please share it.
With Loving Kindness
Ian
I'm just thinking out loud really and pondering these difficult questions. If anyone has a view or some Buddhist teaching that can shed some light on the subject then please share it.
With Loving Kindness
Ian
0
Comments
I underwent one session of this - three fertilised eggs were implanted and the rest stored for six months and then thrown away. Had someone asked me, I would have very happily donated them for scientific research, another infertile woman, any damn thing - I had decided I wasn't going to go through it again.
But the amount of good that could have come to people with MS, Parkinsons and other awful diseases would have made me feel good about the way my unused eggs were recycled. And as the potential mother, I would have been proud to help. Anything is better than thinking of them just getting binned.
Moral questions on potential human beings? No idea. For me, even as the person that produced them, they were just a collection of cells until they were implanted and viable. Any worthwhile use for them (that helps reduce suffering) is OK.
Perhaps it is a result of my own family experience but I think that this question is so fundamental and so troubling because the eugenicists and racial theorists during the last century addressed it and found unacceptable answers, 'identifying' "sub-humans" and "supermen".
The last half century has also seen a wider acceptance of humanity's place in the animal kingdom. DNA research shows close affinity between humans and other animals. So how do we define a human being? And, once defined, what do we do about those who fall outside the definition? And, at what point, does a cytoblast or zygote or foetus acquire the nature of humanity?
I think that neither science nor theology has come up with adequate definitions yet. There is a significant body of belief among the general public that 'life begins' immediately on fertilisation, and (I would guess) a somewhat smaller body who would set the event later in the process of development. Because science has not yet agreed an accepted definition of life, how can we be sure?
http://www.bswa.org/audio/documents/WhenDoesLifeBegin.pdf
I'm not sure how widely this view is accepted, even within the Theravadan community.
I don't know of any other articles by Buddhists on this issue.
(So when is Life a Potential....?)
They'll eat rice though, as it's a staple....
Isn't this a little extreme...?
Sounds more Jain than Buddhist - and pretty extreme Jainism, too.
From here:
Don't some people make their lives complicated by unnecessary scruples?
As to the ethical questions of stem cell research, I thought scientists had just found a way to get stem cells from sources other than embryos? I'm vague on the details but I remember reading a headline in Reuter's health news to that effect. It was a great discovery because it put to rest the concerns of the right wing conservative evangelists in power in the U.S., like the current president, who wouldn't support stem cell research from embryos.
My personal opinion runs along the same lines as that of Ajahn Bram as explained by Jacx. There is sentient life and non sentient life and if a group of cells is incapable of sensory perception then I don't think it can be considered sentient.
But ask me tomorrow and I may have changed my mind. It's one of those impossible questions....it all rests on opinion, doesn't it?
HEAR HEAR!!!!
Seriously now, law makers throughout the world are legislating in this area and we as citizens of our various countries should have something to say, even if it is just a rebuff to the religious right. I've now come to believe that life doesn't begin with conception, rather at some later point when the developing brain "takes over" from the simple multiplication and grouping of cells. I have no idea when this is, but if it can be defined then it would perhaps make the ideal upper limit for abortions (another contentious subject).
Palzang
There is some controversy over this subject because the Buddha never explicitly states when consciousness arises in an embryo, although he does state in MN 38 that conception requires three things: (i) the mother (i.e., a fertile egg), (ii) the father (a sperm cell), and (iii) the gandhabba (the kammic energy of the being that is seeking rebirth) (source). Additionally, the Theravadin commentaries merely state that with the union of the sperm and egg, consciousness (citta) can arise, but they do not give an explicit time as to when this occurs. In essence, there is no way to be absolutely sure of the moment when consciousness arises in an embryo.
Jason
BTW, there is a type of deva, a sort of yaksha or lower ranking deva, called a gandharva, but that is a different thing. That sort of gandharva is the karmic result of having practiced the most basic sort of ethics as a human. It is said that a monk who is reborn as a gandharva should be ashamed because it shows he had no real accomplishment as a monk, only followed the external rules!
Palzang
Regarding the issue of conception, the moment when consciousness arises in an embryo, and whether fertilised ova and very early embryos outside the mother's womb consitute a living being, I believe that Ajahn Brahmavamso makes some good points in support of his view. Nevertheless, taking into account what it states in the Pali Canon regarding conception and consciousness, one can also reasonably argue that life begins at conception, i.e., that for the fertilization of the ovum to occur, the gandhabba must be present. I do not know the answer myself, and in my opinion, there is no way to be absolutely sure of the moment when consciousness arises in an embryo. That being the case, my own position would to err on the side of caution and treat any embryo, from the moment of fertilization to the end of the eighth week, as being a potential living being. (Ugh, I am starting to sound conservative in my old age.)
Jason
Palzang
I don't think I agree with the "erring on the side of caution" approach either. I think it's good to acknowledge that these are complicated issues and the scriptures aren't clear. I mean, I'd hate to give someone who once worked in a fertility clinic (for example) the message that they'd killed countless living, sentient human beings. It might not be true!
I think it really comes down to personal choice. I choose not to treat embryos as simply a collection of cells, but as potential living beings. If there is a chance that a fertilized ovum, blastocyst, or early embryo are alive, then I will not do anything to harm them. Perhaps that position is naive and overly conservative, but according to the Vinaya, if there is doubt and one acts on that doubt, there is an offense just for acting in the face of the doubt (source). Even though the Vinaya is a training code for monastics, I choose to apply the same standard to my own practice regarding the five precepts.
Therefore, if I have any doubt about something being a living being, I will not do anything to harm that potential being; if I have any doubt that something I find might belong to somebody else, I will not take that item, et cetera. I would certainly hate to give someone who once worked in a fertility clinic the message that they have killed countless living beings, but I will not risk breaking the first precept just to make others feel more at ease. The truth is, I have no way of knowing one way or the other, and while I hope that Ajahn Brahm is correct in his analysis, I still choose to err on the side of caution.
Jason
I just want to add that in the case of fertilization clinics, there is generally no intention by the doctor/s to harm the embryos. Therefore, even if the embryos are "living being," I am reasonably sure that they are not breaking the first precepts, and in effect, killing countless living beings. Furthermore, I do not condemn fertilization clinics or embryonic stem cell research, I am just saying that I am not sure about the moment when consciousness arises in an embryo. That being the case, I choose to treat early embryos as potential living beings because I do not wish to harm any living being out of my own ignorance. I am quite sure that the doctors know enough about embryos to make their own well-informed decisions, and I would never think of telling them how to do their job.
Jason
Thank you.
Welcome - it's one of the "advices"
"Speak your Truth.
Tell it like it is.
There is no reason to do otherwise."
Even he was quoting, but I don't recollect him mentioning the source, so it looks pretty much like a Quaker bit of 'advice'.....
So tell it as you see it folks!
I think if the people (like the so-called Christian right-to-lifers) spent more time caring for the people who are alive and not worrying so much about those that might have been we'd all be better off.
Palzang
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
I'm sorry if I spoke too strongly in my last post. I believe I was addressing somebody not on this board (maybe President Bush?).
In my own tradition (Chinese Mahayana), we are taught that consciousness enters the embryo at conception. But my teachers have never directly addressed issues like stem cell research. I'd guess that they're against it, because they're very strict in their interpretation of not harming - for example, I'm not allowed to swat mosquitoes or eat meat. I don't have any reason or opportunity to handle fetal tissues, so I won't say that I've made a personal decision on how to treat them!
No worries, you did not speak too strongly, I was simply clarifying my position. As you said, it is a complicated issue. In addition, I do not have the opportunity to handle fetal tissue either, however, I have thought about the issue as far as (i) what I would do if I were to get somebody pregnant and they wanted to know how I felt about having an abortion, and (ii) making sure that I do not potentially speak in favor of killing per the rule against intentionally causing the death of a human being found in the Vinaya (BMC I, 4.3).
Therefore, while I believe in a woman's right to choose, (i) I would advise against getting an abortion, and (ii) I am careful not to speak favorably about things such as embryonic stem cell research because I am unsure about the moment when consciousness arises in an embryo. That it why to me, this issue ultimately comes down to personal choice. As I said, I am quite sure that the doctors know enough about embryos to make their own well-informed decisions, and I would never presume to make such decisions for other people.
Jason
Palzang
Just as I would happily sacrifice my own life if it saved the life of dozens or hundreds of others, I think the resultant good has to be balanced. And yes, the taking of human life is a complete no-no to me as well.