Stem Cell Thoughts

Stems cells have been in the news a bit lately in part because of Bill Frist's comments regarding embryonic stem cells (which I learned about via Instapundit - my thanks to Glenn Reynolds for his always excellent work!). This is clearly an emotive issue and one on which the MSM are seeking to hammer President Bush. That often makes me suspect that we may not be getting the whole story about stem cells. So, I asked myself, what do we actually know?

Well, here is what I know (which may of course be wrong - if there is an error in this please let me know - thanks).
First, it is my understanding that there are two sorts of stem cells - adult and embryonic. Adult stem cells can be harvested from various places on a person's body - the mucous lining of the nose, or various sub-cutaneous regions, for example. Embryonic stem cells are harvested from embryos that are obtained from in-vitro fertility treatments (although not, as far as I am aware, from clinical abortions). A third source of stem cells may be from umbilical cord blood, but I am not sure whether these are indeed classified as stem cells, or are something else. If they are stem cells, I think they fall into a third category, since they can only be harvested once and at one particular time (unlike adult stem cells) yet they are not the same as embryonic stem cells - I'd appreciate input from anyone with clarification on this point.
Second, as far as I am aware, the only clinical treatments that currently make use of stem cells, use adult stem cells harvested from the individual being treated. One example is the use of adult stem cells to cure or mitigate spinal cord injuries as discussed in this testimony before the Senate in July 2004. As far as I know, emryonic stem cells are not currently being used in any treatments of humans at this time.

So, what do these facts do to help us address the moral issues involved in embryonic stem cell research? The first thing I would note in this regard is that when such issues are discussed in the MSM, the issue seems, to me, to be deliberately confused by a failure to differentiate embryonic stem cell research from adult stem cell research. I would also note that the use of adult stem cells is very similar to the use of skin grafts for burn victims. That suggests to me a moral continuum that might help to address some of the issues herein.

At one end of the continuum we would have adult stem cell usage, which is morally equivalent to the use of skin grafts, and thus to me seems to be morally unobjectionable. At the other end, let's put the growth of human embryos to a point at which they are sufficiently developed that organs could be harvested from them for use in transplants. As far as I know, nobody is advocating such a practice (publically at any rate) at this time, and such a practice would be considered morally abhorrent by most people today.

If this moral continuum is a valid one (a point of view that is certainly debatable) then the issue is where along this line does the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research lie? My own sense on this is that such usage is not equivalent to the use of skin grafts. In fact, it seems to me that the use of embryonic stem cells is in fact much closer to the use of embrtos to grow organs than to skin grafts.

I acknowledge that others will have a different view on this point. However, I would suggest that while this remains an issue that requires moral debate (which it does) it would be immoral to press forward with the usage of embryonic stem cells beyond what is already being done. Thoughts?