Scientist Urges Stem Cell Trials On Terminally Ill Patients

Scientist Urges Stem Cell Trials On Terminally Ill Patients

The scientist who cloned Dolly the sheep, Dr. Ian Wilmut, is advocating that human embryonic stem cell treatments be made available to terminally ill persons, for whom “the benefits may outweigh the risks,” even if the treatments have not been fully tested in lab animals first. Wilmut spoke to The Scotsman on December 26, and the story has since been re-reported in several other sources, including the BBC, CNS News (see Note below) and The Guardian. Wilmut was quoted in the Scotsman article as saying,

Since I started to become really interested in this, I've come across people who have neuro-degenerative disease who face a steady, slow decline and premature death, a very unpleasant situation. They would be only too keen to participate in trials. Imagine you've got motor neurone disease and you've got no movement below your neck. You hear reports of benefits from stem cells in news reports, on the internet. That person would be very enthusiastic.

He also said that there would need to be informed consent and that it would be important for doctors not to be overly enthusiastic about the potential of a treatment. He also cautioned against commercial motivation.

Reaction to this call for treatment includes a call for caution against rushing forward. Professor John Savill said in the Scotsman that it was an ethical debate that needed to be carried forward—it could be unethical not to treat people who are suffering. But he warned that if a procedure is tried too early and has adverse effects, that could be very detrimental to further research on that procedure. Another researcher, Ainsley Newson, told the paper that it was important not to jump in and hurt a vulnerable group of people.

The Catholic Church has responded to Wilmut’s statements by urging caution. According to The Herald,

A spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland said as long as patients were not compelled to take part in tests and that the stem cells came from adults, it did not object. However, he warned that there had been a huge amount of hype on stem cell research which came to nothing. "It seems unfair that people with very serious illnesses are constantly having hype-filled hope dangled in front of them. We have to take this with a pinch of salt."

I would be interested in seeing some statements from bioethicists or scientists who are opposed to hESC research on the grounds that it destroys a human life about the ethics of using adult stem cell treatments on the terminally ill—let’s separate out the hESC debate from the ethics of using experimental treatment on the terminally ill. How does one balance risks versus suffering? Are there cases where one person’s health is not in the best interest of the person’s family? Obviously informed consent is crucial, but informed consent can be tricky to define. What if people don’t want to hear the risks because they are so desperate? What if the treatment is for a disease that affects one racial group disproportionately more than others? What about diseases that affect the elderly versus degenerative diseases that invariably kill children before they reach puberty?

In an ideal world, I believe that it would be a decision made by the patient, his or her family, and the physician. I don’t think we are in an ideal world. I am not opposed to the idea of experimental treatment for the terminally ill myself, but I agree caution and carefully crafted guidelines are essential.

(Note--CSN News quoted Wesley J. Smith as a bioethicist. If you read the story, be aware that Smith is opposed to hESC research and contributes to conservative and pro-life publications on stem cell research. He alleges liberal media bias in covering stories. CSN News did not identify this background, and quoted from his blog. I have no problem with them quoting him, but I think it was poor journalism on their part to identify him as a leading bioethicist without saying that he generally takes a particular position [which in this case happens to be “conservative”—but a “liberal” slant should be id’d too]. When scientists from universities or representatives of particular organizations are quoted, the affiliation usually provides a clue to the general beliefs in which the statement is being made, which is absent in this case.

(Oh, and by the way, what do I think about “liberal media bias” of embryonic stem cell coverage? In general, just about every mainstream article which I have read on hESC research has seemed balanced to me, identifying the controversy and quoting from representatives of various sides. It does appear to me after several months of doing this blog that there is some difference in coverage as to what stories are picked up by many media. However, I think that adult stem cells are not controversial, so newspapers aren’t as interested—they don’t sell. Science reporting for mainstream publications is generally light on anything that is not interesting to a large segment of the public. I think if a bias exists, it’s a monetary bias, not an intentional bias against adult stem cell treatments. If hESCs were uncontroversial, they would receive no more coverage than cold drugs do—it wouldn’t be a public issue. Journalism frequently sees itself as reporting on issues.)