Editorial dodges responsibility

The NZ Herald editorial of 23 December insists that parents must control the use of spare human embryos created through IVF. If parental consent is a proxy for the rights of embryos, should not the law be a proxy for the decision of those parents who cannot be found? Quite clearly the missing parents belong to the camp of those who favour IVF and related medical advances, rather than to the opposing camp represented in the Herald columns recently by the Roman Catholic Church and Right to Life New Zealand. Why then does the editorial decide against the parents when it ends by parroting the words of the RC Church about respectfully allowing embryos to die?
The expression “allow to die” is an attempt to do two morally reprehensible things. Firstly, it seeks to disguise the fact that a decision is in fact being made and secondly, it tries to avoid taking any responsibility for the decision. Let us be clear: choosing not to act is just as much a decision as choosing to act. The editorial preference is not only to destroy the embryos, but also to destroy the hopes of many people who suffer from Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, cancer, and other diseases which one day may be curable through the use of stem cells.

Religious opposition to use of stem cells

Ken Orr of Right to Life New Zealand opposes the use of stem cells for medical research because he believes that “At the moment of conception, the embryo is endowed by his Creator with human rights, the foundation of which is the inalienable right to life”. Mr Orr is entitled to his views, but when he seeks to influence the Minister of Health and the wider community he would do well to heed the views of US President-elect Barack Obama on religion and politics:
“Democracy demands that the religiously-motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. What do I mean by this? It requires that proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice I can’t simply point to the teachings of my church, or invoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those of no faith at all.”
Few New Zealanders believe that a microscopic dot has the same rights as a human person. To convince the rest of us to stand in the way of medical advances Mr Orr will have to do better than his confusion of Biblical interpretation and Enlightenment values.