Position on Stem Cell Research

Abstract

The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and American Neurological Association (ANA) position paper on the use of stem cells in biomedical research is a decision to support destruction of and experimentation on human life at its very earliest stage. The AAN and ANA justify this position by citing “a strong moral obligation to pursue research that may result in beneficial treatments.” However, using an end to justify a means is dangerous when dealing with human life and was used in the last century to justify increasing encroachment on principles that physicians should hold sacred.1 Physicians should not be saying, “This research may result in a cure, therefore it is justified.” Physicians should be saying, “If there is any, even the least chance that this research is ethically questionable, we should not go anywhere near it.” The AAN and ANA should be guardians of the traditional ethics and standards of the neurologic profession and should be conservative and cautious about any new positions they take on behalf of their members.2 It is also difficult to understand the motivation of the AAN and ANA to put out an ethical position paper which is decisive in its conclusions when there is ongoing debate and disagreement on this issue throughout the country. The journal Neurology has also not shown balance in publishing two editorials that strongly favor one side of the debate without giving a voice to neurologists who object to using embryonic human stem cells. April 4th 2005 Dear Dr. Olson: We are writing to raise a major concern about the way in which the President and Board of Directors of the American Academy of Neurology have represented its members in the recent Position Statement regarding the use of embryonic and adult human stem cells in biomedical research. The position taken …