By more than a 2-to-1 margin, Britain's Parliament voted December 19, 2000, to amend an existing law to allow stem cell research to go ahead. Stem cells can be engineered to become any kind of cell and are touted as providing a potential quantum leap forward in the treatment of such terribly debilitating diseases as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

Have the Brits legally sanctioned cloning? "No," promised Public Health Minister Yvette Cooper. "The idea of cloning babies is completely unacceptable to the House and public opinion as well." Ms. Cooper assured the House of Commons that it was not being asked to "cross the Rubicon" and sanction human cloning. That is not entirely true.

A close inspection of the science necessary to accomplish stem cell research reveals that the British government has glossed over profound ethical issues. In fact, current stem cell research does require human cloning. A cell from the patient under treatment is fused with an egg cell taken from a donor, after which an electrical stimulus "tricks" the egg into "thinking" it has been fertilized. Thus, the life of a clone of the patient is begun. Parsing words, one could claim that human life hasn't been cloned only because the embryos are not allowed to develop into fetuses and be born.

The early cells produced by the new embryo are the precious stem cells for which medical scientists are searching.

Another "ethical Rubicon" is crossed when the embryos thus created are destroyed within 14 days. No one seems willing to say, "the emperor has no clothes"-that is, none dare call it murder. Life is begun and ended in the name of medical science assisting in the cure of diseases.

The proposed amendment was supported with emotional testimony from people suffering from chronic illnesses, who pleaded with the Commons to give license to the medical community to go forward with stem cell research. No one gainsays the suffering of the diseased and their families, but framing the amendment in both the white coat of medical research and this emotional cloak obscures other issues that are involved.

Liam Fox, Shadow Health Secretary, opposed the amendment, saying that he was not convinced that the same benefits could not be realized by other means. He eloquently summarized, "...the medical revolution carries with it moral, ethical and philosophical consequences and our ability to deal with these matters sometimes lags behind our technical knowledge. Just because we can do something does not mean we have to" (emphasis added).

The moral, ethical and philosophical consequences Dr. Fox mentioned are monumental, and yet they're brushed aside as mere political debating points that can be negotiated away.

Sources: "MPs Give Go Ahead for Embryo Research," by Philip Webster and Greg Hurst, the London Times, December 20, 2000; "Wanted: Women's Eggs for Research," by Anthony Browne and Gaby Hinsliff, The Guardian, December 17, 2000.