Potential cures for dozens of debilitating conditions are under threat from a European ruling that claims that making money from embryonic stem cell research is immoral, leading scientists have warned.
As one raised as a Papist I can see the logic being deployed. Good cannot come from an evil act. This was used a decade or more back to insist that British Catholics should not use the newer Rubella vaccine, for it had been created from the cells of an aborted foetus. That abortion itself was an evil act and thus good cannot come from the vaccine created out of it.
The monk who drafted this (entirely unsurprising, given Catholic moral teachings) opinion was in fact one of the history teachers at my old school.
Anyway, we can see at least elements of this in this ruling:
EU judges are considering a test case that could make it unlawful to patent applications using embryonic stem cells, or anything derived from them, on moral grounds.
Perhaps not “you may not do this” but at least “you may not profit from this” which amounts, in the end, to very much the same thing. For without profit no one will do it.
Despite the dreadfulness of the subject matter (“is it OK to kill someone in order to save others?”) there is a certain amusement in it all.
For those who insist that there are no moral concerns about embryonic stem cell research, hey, a blastocyst isn’t a person so it doesn’t matter, are exactly those who tend to argue that there are moral concerns over the use of money in the creation of blastocysts. No money should change hands for eggs or sperm for example. The Mary Warnocks of this world (purely as an example, I don’t actually know what her views are on these two subjects, just a symbol for those who would do the moral philosohpy behind the law for us).