Rights and Duties; Ethical Debates

john smith · 03-26-2006, 01:20 PM

RIGHTS AND DUTIES

The two day meeting in San Francisco on Stem Cells, www.thestemcellmeeting.com saved its most dramatic panel for last: Religious Voices on Embryo Research. There was a panel chair or moderator and four voices with cachet in the field of Bio-Ethics. The focus, however, was on Father Tadeusz Pacholcyzk or Father Tad and Laurie Zoloth.

Fortunately, a version of Celebrity Death Match, did not ensue. If, however, such an event were to be staged, it is difficult to imagine better adversaries. Within the field of Bio-Ethics, these two individuals are the most outspoken and, perhaps, most heard when the issues of ESCR or the blastocyst are discussed. If IQ were perfume, the crowd would have fainted.

All the men and women on this panel are smart, very very smart. The arguments they profess are rooted in centuries of tradition and ethical consideration and they understand each iota and subtlety of their position.

I introduced myself to Father Tad at the first morning’s reception. We have a common acquaintance and that connection broke the ice. Later, I joined him for lunch. There, after others at our table had left, we were able to have a one on one. We discussed his role with the church and because I live in Oregon, I explained the Death with Dignity legislation. I am sure this is abhorrent to the Catholic Church but he did not lecture me.

What can I say? He and I are on opposite sides of the ESCR debate. Nonetheless, I liked Father Tad and consider him a new friend. I even invited him to the CRPA Rally in DC on May 2nd. He is an extremely decent person, frighteningly bright as an opponent. I may too easily dismiss the dogma of the church as constipated, but it would be a mistake to dismiss this man’s intelligence and fervent beliefs.

On the second day of the meetings, just prior to the ethics panel, I was introduced to Laurie Zoloth. Yet another incredible brain, energized like a fighter before a championship bout, eager for the confrontation but not with an eye for blood. Instead, she was anxious to share the pulpit, so to speak. Obviously, the church has more access due to weekly gatherings of congregants. This would be an opportunity to put their positions side by side and let those coming at this from a business and scientific angle hear the clarity of their voices and make their own decisions.

After introductions and an overview of the four basic ethical positions, Ms Zoloth and Father Tad were given an opportunity for back to back explanations of their beliefs. Quite simply, it came down to the interpretation of two words: Rights and Duties.

The Vatican’s position is that the blastocyst is alive and therefore has rights. The church wishes to protect those rights and, accordingly, the sanctity of life it represents. They believe the wealthy and powerful are exploiting the right to life of these embryos/blastocysts, because they cannot defend themselves.

The Jewish tradition that Laurie Zoloth espouses believes that "...careful use of the human blastocyst may be seen as a basic human duty in the face of significant suffering." She asks, "At what point (in development) do we have a duty to protect the fetus?"

Of course, Father Tad was a bit like Daniel in the lion's den. This was, after all, a partisan crowd for the development of stem cell research though not necessarily ESCs. I tried to be objective yet I believe Zoloth's points carried the day. Admittedly, I am more pragmatic than dogmatic.

His three points were, 1) Follow the science; we were all once blastocysts so how could they not be human? 2) A law passed in the 1940s to protect our national symbol, the Bald Eagle, carries stiff penalties for killing the bird AND its eggs. 3) The slippery slope theory which suggests that beginning with abortion and then contraception we have slipped and become desensitized to the point that we accept increasing degrees of inhumane behavior leading to a dystopic future full of infanticide and chimeras.

The reason I think Zoloth kicked a little philosophical butt is because Father Tad's arguments and analogies did not fly well in the atmosphere of The Stem Cell Meeting. They were like the waxen wings of Icarus melting in the sun of science. I honestly hoped that such a brainiac as Father Tad had more sound arguments than these. Perhaps on this occasion, he just chose poorly. I expect a stouter defense in the future.

It was quickly pointed out that yes, we were all blastocysts but we were ALSO all implanted in a womb.

And yes the protection of the Bald Eagle continues but the law was not instituted for moral reasons but because there was a population problem with the species.

Finally, I have my own thoughts about the slippery slope theory. I believe that those who are paralyzed and in fact anyone with a neuro-degenerative disease is sliding down a slippery slope of their own. They may or may not eventually attain salvation but many, far too many, will have to pass through hell on their way to the bottom of that slope. If we can stop that slide and do so with respect for the choices, then we must act.

John

PS: If you are interested in my summaries on other issues of The Stem Cell Meeting, here are links to Advocates, and The Science.

Wise Young · 03-26-2006, 01:35 PM

John, wonderful. You need to publish these pieces. Wise.

Leo · 03-26-2006, 03:57 PM

Yes John, very very good.

thanks

Leif · 05-09-2006, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john smith

What can I say? He and I are on opposite sides of the ESCR debate. Nonetheless, I liked Father Tad and consider him a new friend. I even invited him to the CRPA Rally in DC on May 2nd. He is an extremely decent person, frighteningly bright as an opponent. I may too easily dismiss the dogma of the church as constipated, but it would be a mistake to dismiss this man’s intelligence and fervent beliefs.

John, a bit curious here. Did he show up and face the SCI community? Probably not. Also, why is Tad supposed to have a monopoly on the ethics? Does his long education give this right to him? I don’t think so, I believe the regular woman and man has the same value and right of ethics as this character. Unfortunately though, since many believe he is the commander in chief when it comes to ethics he gets more media attention than the regular woman and man. And that is a bad ethic.

john smith · 05-09-2006, 11:17 AM

Leif;

Father Tad's reputation is well deserved. He speaks on behalf of the Catholic Church. I cannot say if he has ever addressed the SCI Community. Where is that community?

The only monopoly he has on ethics is in interpreting and explaining the catechism. Of course, Catholic dogma suggests this holds the answer to ethical questions.

He is merely a voice, one of many, but a formidable one because of the size of his constituency. That is why he gets the media attention. Good Catholics look to their leaders to understand the complexities of numerous ethical questions; birth control, homosexuality, in vitro fertilization, and certainly the remaining blastocysts from this procedure.

You are correct. Individuals need to come to their own conclusions and I know the parents of some SCI children who are Catholic. Their personal circumstances create doubts about their faith because the church seems to have nothing to offer but the prospect of salvation. That is a difficult concept to grasp when your son or daughter cannot move their hands or fingers, cannot walk, or lives in the throes of severe pain. Some no longer believe, some refine the dogma to fit the realities of their lives.

This, to my way of thinking, is the problem with dogma. There is no wiggle room. Father Tad is a good person who I admire, but I do not see him perceiving Catholicism as a developing theology. For him, it appears written in stone.

A more palatable Christian for me is the Reverend William Sloan Coffman who says, "The integrity of love is more important than the purity of dogma." Another is our "born again" former President Jimmy Carter who believes, "God created the Universe. Science is just a revelation of God's creation."

John

Leif · 05-09-2006, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john smith

This, to my way of thinking, is the problem with dogma. There is no wiggle room. Father Tad is a good person who I admire, but I do not see him perceiving Catholicism as a developing theology. For him, it appears written in stone.

John. You hit the nail on the head here. - This is precisely the problem with Tad and his bunch. For them it is written in stone as you write here and there is no room for them to give some slack at all, they are just plain and simple against this research and says just NO.

Over here we have also similar discussions when it comes to the ethics from a small minority with respect to our biotech bill but we have a majority for it now both in government and in parliament. - Not long ago I spoke on the phone with a professor in science, one thing he told me about was a discussion he had with a professor in theology recently. The professor in theology was of course against this science but he told the science professor that the best thing that probably could happen now for some religious people was just to make the bill become a law. This would make a cease fire and the religious opponents would probably get peace with this since they are doomed to loose this science fight anyway. The professor in theology also said that this then after a period in time would be forgotten and everything would be nice and calm again. Hope you understood what I was trying to write here. The same thing would probably be valid for Tad and his followers as well I meant, maybe having this into a law quickly can bring them also some peace in mind.

What I meant by Tad and the SCI community was - did he show up in the DC rally where you invited him? Also, when it comes to birth control and homosexuality he is living in prehistorically times but that is another story.

Fr. Tad is probably a nice guy to play golf with but I wouldn’t play cure with him :-) Leif

john smith · 05-09-2006, 01:10 PM

Leif;

Father Tad was not at the Rally. It is probably just as well. Those who attended were so full of positives and hope. What I would like him to do would just appear at such an event in disguise. Hear the stories, look into the eyes of the childen who are paralyzed and their parents. Then go check out an IVF clinic and absorb the humanity of the cells in those petri dishes.

John

rwm · 05-09-2006, 01:44 PM

John,

The same debate happened on Beacon Hill last February 04. Father Tad gave the same prepared statements. Knowing these statements are being recirculated, shows weakness, in my eyes. He can be out debated, using the same ethics, morals and beliefs. This is coming from a raised, non practicing catholic.

Yes, he is a very nice man that is wonderful to speak with. Beware of the wolf in sheeps clothing. That may be a hard statement and I certainly do not want to offend anybody.

Bob

Leif · 05-09-2006, 02:02 PM

John I understand that you might think for Fr. Tad to attend the rally it could have had some influence on him but I doubt so. A time a go when he was making jokes about liposuction and the cure in a conference written about in an article I wrote to him and suggested for him not to attend rally’s but to go and visit an SCI ICU/Rehab unit and see how much fun it is, he just replied that he prayed for me – go figure, well hopefully the pray did help his ego if not for anything else. The truth is that he wouldn’t have changed his mind if all the SCI people in the world were outside his house hanging upside down in their wheelchairs. – There is just one thing to do with him and his likes and that is to isolate them and make sure they don’t get into power. Leif

Jereese · 05-09-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwm

John,

The same debate happened on Beacon Hill last February 04. Father Tad gave the same prepared statements. Knowing these statements are being recirculated, shows weakness, in my eyes. He can be out debated, using the same ethics, morals and beliefs. This is coming from a raised, non practicing catholic.

Yes, he is a very nice man that is wonderful to speak with. Beware of the wolf in sheeps clothing. That may be a hard statement and I certainly do not want to offend anybody.

Bob

Father Tad is just repetitive, just like brainwashing.

Same as Bush's brainwashing. Nice guy by all acounts to go fishing with but that does not make it any less of a brainwashing tactic.

03-26-2006, 01:20 PM	#1
john smith Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Location: Hood River, OR USA Posts: 1,832	Rights and Duties; Ethical Debates RIGHTS AND DUTIES The two day meeting in San Francisco on Stem Cells, www.thestemcellmeeting.com saved its most dramatic panel for last: Religious Voices on Embryo Research. There was a panel chair or moderator and four voices with cachet in the field of Bio-Ethics. The focus, however, was on Father Tadeusz Pacholcyzk or Father Tad and Laurie Zoloth. Fortunately, a version of Celebrity Death Match, did not ensue. If, however, such an event were to be staged, it is difficult to imagine better adversaries. Within the field of Bio-Ethics, these two individuals are the most outspoken and, perhaps, most heard when the issues of ESCR or the blastocyst are discussed. If IQ were perfume, the crowd would have fainted. All the men and women on this panel are smart, very very smart. The arguments they profess are rooted in centuries of tradition and ethical consideration and they understand each iota and subtlety of their position. I introduced myself to Father Tad at the first morning’s reception. We have a common acquaintance and that connection broke the ice. Later, I joined him for lunch. There, after others at our table had left, we were able to have a one on one. We discussed his role with the church and because I live in Oregon, I explained the Death with Dignity legislation. I am sure this is abhorrent to the Catholic Church but he did not lecture me. What can I say? He and I are on opposite sides of the ESCR debate. Nonetheless, I liked Father Tad and consider him a new friend. I even invited him to the CRPA Rally in DC on May 2nd. He is an extremely decent person, frighteningly bright as an opponent. I may too easily dismiss the dogma of the church as constipated, but it would be a mistake to dismiss this man’s intelligence and fervent beliefs. On the second day of the meetings, just prior to the ethics panel, I was introduced to Laurie Zoloth. Yet another incredible brain, energized like a fighter before a championship bout, eager for the confrontation but not with an eye for blood. Instead, she was anxious to share the pulpit, so to speak. Obviously, the church has more access due to weekly gatherings of congregants. This would be an opportunity to put their positions side by side and let those coming at this from a business and scientific angle hear the clarity of their voices and make their own decisions. After introductions and an overview of the four basic ethical positions, Ms Zoloth and Father Tad were given an opportunity for back to back explanations of their beliefs. Quite simply, it came down to the interpretation of two words: Rights and Duties. The Vatican’s position is that the blastocyst is alive and therefore has rights. The church wishes to protect those rights and, accordingly, the sanctity of life it represents. They believe the wealthy and powerful are exploiting the right to life of these embryos/blastocysts, because they cannot defend themselves. The Jewish tradition that Laurie Zoloth espouses believes that "...careful use of the human blastocyst may be seen as a basic human duty in the face of significant suffering." She asks, "At what point (in development) do we have a duty to protect the fetus?" Of course, Father Tad was a bit like Daniel in the lion's den. This was, after all, a partisan crowd for the development of stem cell research though not necessarily ESCs. I tried to be objective yet I believe Zoloth's points carried the day. Admittedly, I am more pragmatic than dogmatic. His three points were, 1) Follow the science; we were all once blastocysts so how could they not be human? 2) A law passed in the 1940s to protect our national symbol, the Bald Eagle, carries stiff penalties for killing the bird AND its eggs. 3) The slippery slope theory which suggests that beginning with abortion and then contraception we have slipped and become desensitized to the point that we accept increasing degrees of inhumane behavior leading to a dystopic future full of infanticide and chimeras. The reason I think Zoloth kicked a little philosophical butt is because Father Tad's arguments and analogies did not fly well in the atmosphere of The Stem Cell Meeting. They were like the waxen wings of Icarus melting in the sun of science. I honestly hoped that such a brainiac as Father Tad had more sound arguments than these. Perhaps on this occasion, he just chose poorly. I expect a stouter defense in the future. It was quickly pointed out that yes, we were all blastocysts but we were ALSO all implanted in a womb. And yes the protection of the Bald Eagle continues but the law was not instituted for moral reasons but because there was a population problem with the species. Finally, I have my own thoughts about the slippery slope theory. I believe that those who are paralyzed and in fact anyone with a neuro-degenerative disease is sliding down a slippery slope of their own. They may or may not eventually attain salvation but many, far too many, will have to pass through hell on their way to the bottom of that slope. If we can stop that slide and do so with respect for the choices, then we must act. John PS: If you are interested in my summaries on other issues of The Stem Cell Meeting, here are links to Advocates, and The Science. __________________ "Hope is like a road in the country; there was never a road, but when many people walk on it, the road comes into existence." Lin Yutang Last edited by john smith; 12-17-2006 at 06:30 PM.

03-26-2006, 03:57 PM	#3
Leo Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Yankton, South Dakota Posts: 3,605	Yes John, very very good. thanks __________________ "You kids and your cures, why back when I was injured they gave us a wheelchair and that's the way it was and we liked it!" Grumpy Old Man .."i used to be able to goof around so much because i knew Superman had my back. now all i've got is his example -- and that's gonna have to be enough."

05-09-2006, 11:17 AM	#5
john smith Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Location: Hood River, OR USA Posts: 1,832	Leif; Father Tad's reputation is well deserved. He speaks on behalf of the Catholic Church. I cannot say if he has ever addressed the SCI Community. Where is that community? The only monopoly he has on ethics is in interpreting and explaining the catechism. Of course, Catholic dogma suggests this holds the answer to ethical questions. He is merely a voice, one of many, but a formidable one because of the size of his constituency. That is why he gets the media attention. Good Catholics look to their leaders to understand the complexities of numerous ethical questions; birth control, homosexuality, in vitro fertilization, and certainly the remaining blastocysts from this procedure. You are correct. Individuals need to come to their own conclusions and I know the parents of some SCI children who are Catholic. Their personal circumstances create doubts about their faith because the church seems to have nothing to offer but the prospect of salvation. That is a difficult concept to grasp when your son or daughter cannot move their hands or fingers, cannot walk, or lives in the throes of severe pain. Some no longer believe, some refine the dogma to fit the realities of their lives. This, to my way of thinking, is the problem with dogma. There is no wiggle room. Father Tad is a good person who I admire, but I do not see him perceiving Catholicism as a developing theology. For him, it appears written in stone. A more palatable Christian for me is the Reverend William Sloan Coffman who says, "The integrity of love is more important than the purity of dogma." Another is our "born again" former President Jimmy Carter who believes, "God created the Universe. Science is just a revelation of God's creation." John __________________ "Hope is like a road in the country; there was never a road, but when many people walk on it, the road comes into existence." Lin Yutang

05-09-2006, 01:10 PM	#7
john smith Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Location: Hood River, OR USA Posts: 1,832	Leif; Father Tad was not at the Rally. It is probably just as well. Those who attended were so full of positives and hope. What I would like him to do would just appear at such an event in disguise. Hear the stories, look into the eyes of the childen who are paralyzed and their parents. Then go check out an IVF clinic and absorb the humanity of the cells in those petri dishes. John __________________ "Hope is like a road in the country; there was never a road, but when many people walk on it, the road comes into existence." Lin Yutang

05-09-2006, 02:02 PM	#9
Leif Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Noway Posts: 14,998	John I understand that you might think for Fr. Tad to attend the rally it could have had some influence on him but I doubt so. A time a go when he was making jokes about liposuction and the cure in a conference written about in an article I wrote to him and suggested for him not to attend rally’s but to go and visit an SCI ICU/Rehab unit and see how much fun it is, he just replied that he prayed for me – go figure, well hopefully the pray did help his ego if not for anything else. The truth is that he wouldn’t have changed his mind if all the SCI people in the world were outside his house hanging upside down in their wheelchairs. – There is just one thing to do with him and his likes and that is to isolate them and make sure they don’t get into power. Leif __________________ freedom from paralysis is a human rights issue - Jürgen

03-26-2006, 01:35 PM	#2
Wise Young Administrator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: New Brunswick, NJ, USA Posts: 34,093	John, wonderful. You need to publish these pieces. Wise.

05-09-2006, 01:44 PM	#8
rwm Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 160	John, The same debate happened on Beacon Hill last February 04. Father Tad gave the same prepared statements. Knowing these statements are being recirculated, shows weakness, in my eyes. He can be out debated, using the same ethics, morals and beliefs. This is coming from a raised, non practicing catholic. Yes, he is a very nice man that is wonderful to speak with. Beware of the wolf in sheeps clothing. That may be a hard statement and I certainly do not want to offend anybody. Bob

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
U.S. House candidate profiles/Questions for U.S. House candidates	Max	Health & Science News	0	08-16-2002 12:50 PM