In 2001, the President’s Council on Bioethics was formed to explore the human and moral significance of advances in medicine, and to advise the president on them. Last week, Dr. Edmund Pellegrino, a Georgetown professor emeritus of medicine and medical ethics, began his tenure as chair of the council. Pellegrino should seize this chance to introduce real debate into the pivotal advisory group.
In the past four years, many scientists and ethicists have accused the council of being motivated solely by Judeo-Christian concerns. The previous chair, Dr. Leon Kass, a conservative professor from the University of Chicago and a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, led the council to recommend a four-year moratorium on embryonic stem cell research in 2002.
This did not constitute a ban on private research, but it did effectively bring discovery in the field to a halt. The decision was based on the assumption that the destruction of a 14-day-old zygote constitutes termination of nascent human life. The decision was not based on scientific fact, but on Christian theology.
Furthermore, in an act that directly countered constructive debate, President George W. Bush failed to renew the terms of two council members who had supported stem cell research in 2004.
Americans come from a diversity of religious and philosophical backgrounds. A Judeo-Christian argument against stem-cell research will not necessarily satisfy Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostics or Atheists, to put it simply. How can the viewpoints of secular society be heard in such a debate? For a true consensus to be reached on these issues, the council cannot be so simplistic in its discourse.
Pellegrino has the leadership ability and the stature to turn around this committee and to create the dialogue these issues deserve. Pellegrino should use his weight in the field to set a new tone for council debates. Although, according to Beauchamp, his vision of ethics is certainly linked to his personal Catholicism, he should ensure that non-Christian ethical systems factor into council decisions.
Under Pellegrino, the council needs to acknowledge the complexity of both bioethics and America’s moral landscape. The debate is far too multifaceted to do otherwise.
