Prof. Dr.
Dianne Nutwell Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
Former Research
Scientist (NIH); Professor of
Philosophy
School of
Philosophy, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.
copyright
October 14, 2002
Medicine and
Human Dignity,
International Conference, "Conceiving the Embryo"
Centre
Culturel, Woluwe-St. Pierre,
Brussels, Belgium
Sunday, October
20, 2002
THE
EARLY HUMAN EMBRYO: 'SCIENTIFIC'
MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS: IMPLICATIONS
FOR ETHICS AND PUBLIC POLICY
**
"When
_I_ use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is", said Alice, "whether you CAN make words
mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty,
"which
is to be master --
that's
all."
Through
the Looking-Glass,
by Lewis Carroll [Charles Dodgson]
SCENE:
A dark meeting room somewhere in Brussels.
CHARACTERS: Chairman, Lobbyists (Dr. "Science", Dr. Gyno, Dr.
Human Embryology, Prof. Philos, Master Bioethics, Crippled Conscience, and
Well-Formed Conscience); also
present, Jaded Judge, Perplexed Parliamentarians, and Narrator.
PLOT:
The selected committee members are meeting to debate and reach an ethical
consensus on proposed legislation concerning human cloning and human embryonic
stem cell research. The language of
the legislation has been written by those in attendance.
The Chairman
enters the dark meeting room and calls the meeting to order.
All members, except Well-Formed Conscience, who is knocking politely on
the other side of the heavy locked door, are present.
Mr.
Chairman:
The purpose of this meeting is to listen to all relevant opinions
concerning this critically important piece of legislation on human cloning and
human embryonic stem cell research that we Parliamentarians have already decided
to propose. Each lobbyist present
will be given a full 2 minutes to present his or her suggestions for the
language to be used in the legislation before we finally vote.
Since the issues involved in this legislation are very technical, I would
like Master Bioethics to proceed first, and to explain to the rest of us the
medical facts we all need to understand accurately in order to be well-informed
on these subjects. After all, the
starting point for considering these technical issues is the bioethics.
Dr. Gyno:
I object, Mr. Chairman. Physicians,
especially ObGyn's, are the experts in these issues. We should proceed first.
___________________________________________________________
**
Emphases are used
throughout this text only to aid those unfamiliar with certain terms and issues.
Dr.
"Science": Objection,
Mr. Chairman. Physicians have
medical degrees, not Ph.D. degrees. The
correct starting point is the empirical science of mouse molecular biology and
frog genetics.
Mr.
Chairman:
Of course, Dr. "Science".
Proceed.
Dr.
"Science":
Everyone would agree that we scientists already have absolute freedom of
scientific inquiry; but it would be helpful if such authority were to be fully
sanctioned by national legislation, and declared ethical.
We only want to derive stem cells from some relatively worthless human
"pre-embryos". These
"pre-embryos" can be easily obtained using donated "surplus"
IVF-embryos, or by creating our own by means of either sexual
reproduction (e.g., IVF) or a-sexual reproduction (e.g., cloning) in the
lab. Objections to this research
are simply based on nothing more than the subjective opinions of scientifically
illiterate religious zealots using debatable "scientific facts" who
want to force their own morality down the throats of the rest of us.
They actually claim that these cells are persons immediately at
fertilization or cloning. Imagine
that! Every scientist knows that
"personhood" cannot begin until at least 14-days after fertilization.
Right, Master Bioethics? At
most, these collections of cells possess only a "reduced moral
status". So there are no
serious ethical problems with our proposals.
Crippled
Conscience:
That's right!
Prof.
Philos:
Not so fast, Dr. "Science".
Medicine and science are extremely worthy endeavors, and have
accomplished countless good for us all. And
we both agree that the scientific facts are the starting point for these public
policy decisions. But they must be
the correct scientific facts. And,
may I remind you, that they are also the starting point for the correct
formation of conscience and for the moral decision making process?
Thus isn't it even more urgent for us to make certain that all of us in
this room begin our deliberations with the most accurate science available?
Remember that remarkably wise caution:
"A small error in the beginning leads to a multitude of errors in
the end." If we begin with
erroneous science, then all of our decisions will be erroneous in the end -- and
that could lead to great harm and injury!
Crippled
Conscience:
What is he talking about, Dr. Gyno?
Dr. Human
Embryology:
Quite right, Prof. Philos. Dr.
"Science", you do fail to make several important distinctions.
First, the question of when a human being begins to exist is
strictly a scientific question, and should be professionally required to
be answered by scientists -- but only by us scientists who are academically
credentialed human embryologists.
After all, we are the scientific experts who provide you
scientists with the correct, accurate, and most current scientific facts
concerning the beginning, growth and development of the early human embryo --
the subjects of this legislation that we are here to write.
And our objective scientific facts are hardly "debatable", or
based on religious opinions.
In fact, human embryologist are professionally required to use those
scientific facts which have been sanctioned by the international Nomina
Embryologica Committee, along with the Carnegie Stages of Early Human
Embological Development. This
international committee consists of over 20 of the best and brightest human
embryologists from around the world. They
meet about every 3-5 years to examine and evaluate the latest research studies
in human embryology. They then
determine which scientific facts about the beginning and early development of
these human beings are accurate and reliable, and which are not (and thus
rejected). Their scientific
conclusions are also published in the international Nomina Anatomica.
Second, the question of when a human person begins to exist is not
a scientific question at all, but rather left to philosophers and the
like.
Third, there is no such thing as a "pre-embryo".
The term is a complete myth.
There is, rather, an already existing, new living human embryo, a
human being that begins to exist immediately at fertilization or
cloning. Indeed, the terms
"pre-embryo" and "individualization" have been formally
rejected by the Nomina Embryologica Committee as scientifically
inaccurate and misleading. I just
happen to have an example of their scientific rationale with me right here:
The
term 'pre-embryo' is not used here for the following reasons:
(1) it is ill-defined
because it is said to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or to
include neurulation; (2)
it is inaccurate because purely embryonic cells can already be
distinguished after a few days, as can also the embryonic (not pre-embryonic!)
disc; (3) it is unjustified because the accepted meaning of the word
embryo includes all of the first 8 weeks; (4)
it is equivocal because it may convey the erroneous idea that a new human
organism is formed at only some considerable time after fertilization;
and (5) it was introduced in
1986 'largely for public policy reasons' (Biggers). ... Just as
postnatal age begins at birth, prenatal age begins at fertilization."
[O'Rahilly 2001, p. 88] ...
"Undesirable terms in Human Embryology":
"Pre-embryo"; ill-defined
and inaccurate; use
"embryo". [1]
[O'Rahilly 2001, p. 12]
Crippled
Conscience:
I don't think I want to hear any of this.
Dr. Gyno, can't you do something?
Narrator:
A fierce verbal scuffle immediately breaks out among several of the
committee members, with Master Bioethics finally gaining unfettered speaking
recognition. Well-Formed Conscience
continues knocking politely on the other side of the heavy locked door.
Master
Bioethics:
Mr. Chairman, please. This
scientist is absolutely wrong! As
everyone knows, the "pre-embryo" has been the international scientific
standard used for decades now in all sorts of private and public documents,
guidelines, regulations, laws, etc. At
fertilization or cloning there just simply is no embryo, no
organism, no "developmentally single human being", no
person, no pregnancy. The
embryo doesn't begin until the formation of the inner cell mass in the
blastocyst -- about 5-7 days after fertilization.
Pregnancy doesn't begin until the implantation of the zygote -- or
fertilized egg. And besides, almost
two-thirds of the products of normal fertilization are lost as
"wastage" before they even implant.
How could they possibly be human beings already?
Everybody here agrees on these "scientific" facts.
Right, Judge?
Jaded Judge:
Well, eh ......... . That's
right. Until 14-days there is only
a -- what did you call it -- a "possible
human being", or a "potential human being" -- yes, a
"pre-embryo". At least
that is how I was advised by my expert bioethicists.
Those other people just couldn't make up their minds about it.
Of course ............ if
there is a human being present immediately at fertilization or cloning,
then we would have to go back and review that legal decision, as we so stated.
Crippled
Conscience:
Please! Those little
"pre-embryo" things are just blobs of the mother's tissues, bunches of
cells -- sort of like blood clots! Dr.
Gyno assured us of this. And he
should know. He is part owner of a
very famous IVF clinic, and does a lot of IVF research himself. I gladly signed my "informed consent" forms and
donated my tissues to his distinguished research team just yesterday!
I am so grateful for all the good to society my tissues can do to help
advance science and to cure all such devastating diseases.
Dr. Human
Embryology:
With all due respect, Your Honor and Crippled Conscience, it has been
known, and universally agreed for well over a hundred years now, that a new
unique living human being begins to fully exist immediately at
fertilization. Indeed, this has
been known since 1883, with the publication of Wilhelm His' three-volume
treatise on Human Embryology.[2]
Every human embryologist knows this.
But then, no one on your Court accepted our professional expert position
on this question. Only amicus
briefs from bioethicists, mouse molecular biologists and frog embryologists were
considered relevant.
However, let me take the opportunity now to set the record straight.
Fertilization is indeed the beginning of: the embryo, the embryonic period, the human organism,
the genetically and developmentally individual human being, and
normal pregnancy. "Wastage"
usually occurs because the embryo is abnormal, or the uterus is not properly
prepared. If it is a normal
embryo, it's unfortunate death does not negate it's real but short existence as
a living human being. And there is
no such thing as a "fertilized egg", especially one that would implant
in the uterus. Nor is there such a
thing as an "ovum". Further,
the whole blastocyst is the embryo, not just the cells from the inner
cell mass. I can prove these scientific facts with just these few
direct quotations from several of our best and brightest human embryologists,
some of whom have served on the Nomina Embryologica Committee for
decades:[3]
Although
life is a continuous process, fertilization ... is a critical
landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct
human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei
blend in the oocyte... [The]
coalescence of homologous chromosomes results in a one-cell embryo.
...The zygote is ... a unicellular
embryo and is a highly specialized cell.
... [I]t is now accepted that the word embryo, as
currently used in human embryology, means 'an unborn human in the first 8
weeks' from fertilization'. Embryonic
life begins with the formation of a new embryonic genome (slightly prior to
its activation). [O'Rahilly and
Muller, 2001, p. 87]
"Human
pregnancy begins with the fusion of an egg and a sperm, ...
Finally, the fertilized egg, now properly called an embryo, must make
its way into the uterus ....". [Carlson
1999, p. 2]
In
this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation
and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will
unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.
... Fertilization takes place in
the oviduct [not the uterus]... Embryonic development is
considered to begin at this point.
... These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single,
diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote.
This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning
or zero time point of embryonic development.. [Larson 1997, pp. 1, 17]
A
zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo);
[Z]ygote: This highly specialized, totipotent cell
marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual....
Although fertilization may occur in other parts of the tube, it does
not occur in the uterus. ...
[T]he zygote, a unicellular embryo.
[Moore and Persaud 1998, pp. 2, 34]
A
high percentage of abortuses (30-80%, depending on the study) are structurally
abnormal, and it is maintained that all abortuses under 4 postovulatory
weeks have abnormally formed embryonic tissue.
Thus, spontaneous abortion greatly reduces the number of malformed
fetuses born. [O'Rahilly 2001, pp. 92-93]
Early
spontaneous abortions occur for a variety of reasons, one being the presence
of chromosomal abnormalities in the zygote.
The early loss of embryos, once called pregnancy wastage, appears to
represent a disposal of abnormal conceptuses that could not have
developed normally, i.e., there is a natural screening of embryos.
[Moore and Persaud 1998, p.p. 42 - 43]
"Egg";
best confined to the hen and to cuisine;
use "oocyte". "Ovum";
does not exist in human; use
"oocyte", "ootid", "embryo".
[O'Rahilly 2001, p. 12]
This
process, which occurs about 4 days after fertilization, is called cavitation,
and the fluid-filled space is known as the blastocoele. At
this stage, the embryo as a whole is known as a blastocyst. (p. 38) ...
At the blastocyst stage, the embryo consists of two types
of cells: an outer superficial
layer (the trophoblast) that surrounds a small inner group of cells called the
inner cell mass. [Carlson 1999, pp.
38-40]
Narrator:
At this point everyone in the dark meeting room start shouting all at
once; Well-Formed Conscience begins
banging fiercely on the outside of the heavy locked door. Eventually the Chairman regains control.
Mr.
Chairman:
Order! Let's have order in
this meeting! Dr. Human Embryology,
perhaps you can explain to us in a bit more detail exactly what happens before,
during and immediately after fertilization that can help to further illuminate
your disagreement with Dr.
"Science"?
Dr. Human
Embryology:
With pleasure, Mr. Chairman.[4]
There are two basic categories of cells in the human organism:
somatic ("body") cells, and germ line ("sex" cells).[5]
During very early human embryonic development, primitive germ line cells
are initially totipotent,[6]
and they are diploid, i.e., they each have "46" chromosomes".
So before fertilization can take place, the number of chromosomes in each
germ line cell must be cut in half through the process known as gametogenesis --
which can ultimately take decades to accomplish.
The final effect of gametogenesis is the production of haploid "sex
gametes", the sperm and the oocyte, which have only "23"
chromosomes in each cell. Once
gametogenesis has taken place, then fertilization is at least scientifically
possible. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte
fuse, and each ceases to exist as such. Rather,
a new single-cell human being is produced.
This is a sexual method
of human reproduction, but there are also a-sexual methods of human
reproduction that are involved in our debates here this evening, and need to be
distinguished.
Sexual reproduction (e.g., in fertilization) and a-sexual
reproduction (e.g., in cloning) involve several different, even opposite,
biological processes. I like to use
the analogy of the "zipper".
Think of the process of sexual reproduction roughly as
predominantly a sort of "zipping up", and that of a-sexual
reproduction as predominantly a sort of "zipping down".
For example, in sexual reproduction, this new single-cell human
being contains all of the genetic information it will ever need.
No genetic information is lost or gained during growth and development;
it is only turned on or turned off, depending on what products are
needed. This process is called
"methylation", and the more specialized or differentiated a
cell becomes the more methylation of the DNA has taken place.[7]
The products formed by means of the genetic information in each cell then
cascade[8]
down throughout the life of the organism. This
is "zipping up". Scientifically,
empirically, we know that immediately at fertilization species-specific human
proteins and enzymes are produced, and species-specific human tissues and
organs will be formed. We also know
empirically that carrot, corn, frog, or monkey proteins, enzymes, tissues, or
organs, are not produced.
In a-sexual reproduction, such as cloning, many of these processes
operate in reverse. One begins with
a specialized or differentiated cell, in which some or even most of the DNA in
that cell has been "silenced", and then the methylation bars on that
DNA are incrementally removed -- eventually resulting in a new, single-cell
zygote, an organism, an embryo. This
is "zipping down", and roughly what happened with the production of
Dolly the sheep.
Narrator:
There is utter silence in the dark meeting room.
Even Well-Formed Conscience stops banging on the outside of the heavy
locked door to try to listen. But
rapidly Dr. "Science" regains his usual confident composure.
Dr.
"Science":
This is all very interesting, Dr. Human Embryology, but there is still
one major scientific problem that you have not confronted:
i.e., the empirical fact that these little "pre-embryos" can
form twins until 14-days, and that two of them can fuse to become one
human being. That proves
that these "pre-embryos" can't possibly be "developmentally
individual" yet!
Dr. Human
Embryology:
Not a problem, if you understand the basic embryology.
The quickest way to explain what is going on in both of your examples is
to understand the biological process called "regulation".
Regulation is operative in both "zipping up" and "zipping
down". In "zipping
up", as in sexual reproduction (fertilization), regulation concerns various
processes of differentiation; but
it also becomes involved when an injury has occurred to the organism. Here, regulation is the ability of an embryo or an organ
primordium to "heal" a normal structure if parts have been removed or
added.[9]
In "zipping down", as in a-sexual reproduction such as
twinning, regulation could possibly revert separated totipotent embryonic cells
back to new living human embryos. Indeed,
this is what happens with human twinning in vivo.[10]
I know, Dr. "Science" -- you want to know when each twin is to
be considered as an "individual", right?
Well, please consider twinning from the standpoint of regulation.
A normal human embryo is produced sexually via fertilization (in
vivo or in vitro). This embryo produced at fertilization has already been
determined scientifically to be an individual -- both
"genetically" and "developmentally".
He or she is a new human being. The
embryo grows developmentally in total continuity with itself, and is composed
initially of totipotent cells. If
cells of the embryo are damaged, the embryo could die, or regulation
could set in to "heal" the embryo and restore it to wholeness.
On the other hand, if these totipotent cells are actually separated
from the whole embryo, then these cells too could just die, or regulation
could possibly set in and revert these totipotent cells to new human embryos.
So the first twin is the original human embryo produced sexually and
begins to exist as an individual at fertilization.
The second twin is the new human embryo produced a-sexually and begins to
exist as an individual when regulation is completed.
Thus there is not only a "genetic" continuum involved between
twins, but also a "developmental" continuum, from fertilization on.
Finally, twinning can take place after the arbitrary 14-day marker
event.[11]
And so there is no "pre-embryo".
Now please consider the fusion of two early human embryos to form a
single chimera from the standpoint of regulation.[12]
If two human embryos fuse together to make one organism, that organism is
not a human being. It would
have 92 chromosomes -- whatever kind of animal that makes it!
Both original embryos have died. If
this chimeric organism undergoes regulation, ejects all excess chromosomes, and
reduces the number and proper mixture (male and female) of chromosomes to
"46", then it could theoretically result in the formation of a new
human embryo. But that embryo would
not be the same individual as either of the original embryos that fused.
However, assuming that this process would even be possible in humans,
there would still be both a "genetic" and a "developmental"
continuum in this new human chimera from fertilization on.
Most of the "scientific" data used by the proponents of the
"pre-embryo" and its various "substitutes" (of which there
are many!) has been elementarily erroneous scientifically, has quite selectively
used bits and pieces of "data" on which is superimposed very specific
ideologies, completely lacks any of the more sophisticated understanding of the
biological processes involved, and the term has been formally rejected by the
appropriate international scientific experts in the field.
There is no such thing as a "pre-embryo -- or any of its
"substitutes".
Crippled
Conscience (slightly
upset): Does this mean, Dr. Gyno,
that my "morning-after" pills might sometimes be abortifacient?[13]
Dr. Gyno:
Nonsense, my dear Crippled Conscience.
Even if there is no such thing as a "pre-embryo", at least we
do know for certain that the early human embryo is not a human being until it
gradually evolves into one during gestation -- sort of like a tiny
"human-being-on-the-way", right Master Bioethics?
That's what the famous "biogenetics law" states.
Dr. Human
Embryology:
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a
"human-being-on-the-way" either;
the "biogenetics law" too has long been rejected by scientists.
Quoting from O'Rahilly and Muller:
Recapitulation,
the So-Called Biogenetic Law.
The theory that successive stages of individual development (ontogeny)
correspond with ({recapitulate") successive adult ancestors in the line of evolutionary
descent (phylogeny) became popular in the nineteenth century as the
so-called biogenetic law. This
theory of recapitulation, however, has had a "regrettable influence on the
progress of embryology" (G. de Beer).
... According to the "laws" of von Baer, general characters
(e.g., brain, notochord) appear in development earlier than special characters
(e.g., limbs, hair). Furthermore,
during its development an animal departs more and more from the form of other
animals. Indeed, the early stages
in the development of an animal are not like the adult stages of other forms but
resemble only the early stages of those animals.
The pharyngeal clefts of vertebrate embryos, for example, are neither
gills nor slits. Although a fish
elaborates this region into gill slits, in reptiles, birds, and mammals it is
converted into such structures as the tonsils and the thymus.
[O'Rahilly and Muller 2001, p. 16].
Crippled
Conscience: I
am totally confused now. How can
one thing go by so many different names? And
I just don't see why it matters how one defines a human being, or when it
begins to exist. What difference
does it make, ethically? Bioethics
has already assured us that these are "pre-embryos" and not persons,
and that it is ethical to use and destroy these little blobs or cells for
"the greater good". What's
ethical is ethical. That's what we
really have to vote on tonight!
Master
Bioethics:
Precisely, Crippled Conscience. And
that should be quick and easy to do. Forget
all these scientific facts. After
all, we bioethicists have already decided for you what is ethical. Our ethical principles, you know, are ethics -- they
are brand new, and perfectly fitted for promoting the rapid progress being made
in all of these "converging nano/bio/info/cogno technologies" these
days[14]
-- for that matter, in all areas of human endeavor -- globally![15]
The possibilities are endless! This
ethical theory was all sorted out by us back in 1978 at a quiet meeting in
Belmont, when we wrote our Belmont Report as appointed members of the National
Commission.[16]
With that famous Report of ours, "bioethics" was formally
"born".[17]
The U. S. Congress actually mandated that we identify what is ethical in
their 1974 National Research Act.[18]
So we did just that! Of course, we
incorporated all of this sophisticated and enlightened "pre-embryo"
science in subsequent documents, regulations, laws and guidelines over the
years.[19]
And our ethical theory is neutral -- perfect for public
policy decision making in any pluralistic, multicultural, democratic society!
Don't worry your little conscience about any of this.
Prof.
Philosopher:
Excuse me, Master Bioethics, but your nouvelle theory of ethics is
not "ethics-per-se", nor is it in any way
"neutral". There are
dozens of different kinds of ethical theories throughout all of human history;
and there is certainly no such thing as a "neutral ethics".
Even your bioethics Founders and textbooks clearly state this.[20]
Jaded Judge:
Perhaps the Master can tell us more about this new bioethics
theory. It sounds rather
invigoratingly new, and we all could surely use a change! What ethical principles do you use to determine what
is ethical, Master Bioethics?
Master
Bioethics:
Well, Your Honor, we decided that there would be three ethical principles
-- we just combined bits and pieces of those ethical theories used by Kant and
Mill, mixed them around a bit, and came up with "autonomy",
"justice" and "beneficence".
These three ethical principles are very democratic.
They are prima facie -- no one principle can outweigh either of
the others!
Prof.
Philos:
If each of these ethical principles are prima facie, Master
Bioethics, then what happens when one of these principles comes into conflict
with either of the other two principles? For
example, how to we consistently respect the "autonomous" demands for
medical treatment of a patient, while at the same time respect the medical
expertise of the physician who needs to "do good" for his or her
patient (or at least "do no harm"), and the "just" cost of
the patient's medical treatment to society -- all at the same time? It is impossible. Isn't
that why many of your own Founders have recently admitted that after 25 years of
application these bioethics principles simply don't work in the real world?[21]
Master
Bioethics:
Well, we keep trying.
Prof.
Philos:
What I am most curious to know is precisely how you are defining
"autonomy", "justice" and "beneficence" in your Belmont
Report? You know how fussy we
philosophers are about "definitions"! In my reading of The Belmont Report, those terms have
rather "strange" definitions.
Master
Bioethics:
There is nothing strange about them.
We all agreed that "autonomy" should be defined as
"absolute choice by human beings who are actively exercising their
rationality". Why most
bioethicists so define "autonomy" -- e.g., Peter Singer, the founder
and first president of the International Bioethics Institute himself!
Prof.
Philos:
But wouldn't that mean that non-autonomous human beings who are not
capable of actively exercising their rationality are not persons?
And how can you theoretically defend the mixing and blending together of
the ethical theories of two totally opposite philosophers?
Wouldn't that be self-contradictory?
That doesn't seem very "rational" to me.
Master
Bioethics:
Indeed, you are correct, Prof. Philos.
I can see you like to "push the logic"!
But to continue, "justice" is defined as "fairness"
-- as in John Rawls' Theory of Justice.
Of course, "fairness" is then defined as "the fair
distribution of the risks and benefits of participation in purely experimental
research for the greater good of society" -- which participation is, as we
stated in our Belmont Report, a strong moral obligation and duty for
every citizen in society. And
"beneficence" is defined, of course, mostly in terms of that
"greater good" -- you know, the "common good".
Prof.
Philos: Those are unique definitions, for sure. But tell me, Master Bioethics, by what process did you eleven
appointed committee members arrive at such enlightening definitions of what is
"ethical"?
Master
Bioethics:
By consensus, of course -- just as with our "scientific
definitions". We want to be
strictly democratic. Our
"bioethics" and "science" is now used exclusively by
literally thousands of bioethics experts around the world.
Perplexed
Parliamentarian:
I am curious, Master Bioethics. Just
what makes one an "expert" in bioethics?
Prof.
Philos:
I can answer that question, Mr. Parliamentarian.
Only a handful of "professional" bioethics experts have
academic degrees in the discipline, and even for those few who do, there is no
uniform or standardized curriculum. Most
professors of bioethics don't know the historical or the philosophical roots of
the subject matter they teach; the courses vary from institution to institution;
there are no local, state, or national boards of examination;
and there are no real professional standards.
There is not even a professional code of ethics for bioethicists.
Jaded Judge:
Master Bioethics, I am worried now.
It puts me in mind of an old legal colleague of mine who was a legal
consultant for the National Commission. He
remarked to me one day that he was fearful for the future: "What one
fears", he said, "is that the [National] Commission may become the
mechanism whereby the speculations of the ethicists become the law of the land.
It is already far too easy for abstract notions of right and wrong to
emerge as deontological rules which begin their public life as 'guidelines' but
culminate in the force of law."[22]
Perplexed
Parliamentarian:
The more I think about bioethics, Master Bioethics, the more perplexed I
get. I seem to recall even many of
your Founders lately have expressed deep concern about this bioethics theory --
one of them even went so far as to refer to it as an "ailing patient"
whose "diagnosis is serious, if not terminal".[23] Well, aside from these
minor problems, what are some of the ethical conclusions that bioethicists come
to concerning today's urgent bioethics issues?
Master
Bioethics:
Yes, well ...... we have made great progress over these last 35 years.
For example, by deducing from our ethical principles we would consider
the following as "ethical": designer
babies; prenatal diagnosis with the
intent to abort defective babies; human
embryo and human fetal research; abortion;
human cloning; the formation
of human chimeras (cross-breeding and "back-breeding" with other human
and animal species); human
embryonic stem cell research; "brain birth;
purely experimental high risk research with the mentally ill;
euthanasia; physician-assisted
suicide; living wills documenting
consent to just about anything; and,
withholding and withdrawing food and hydration as extraordinary means.[24]
We are quite certain about these conclusions.
Prof.
Philos:
In contrast, I would suggest a very different ethics, one that has
withstood the test of centuries, and is grounded in our empirical experience of
human nature, our common natural and supernatural goals, and which goods we all
hold in common by virtue of that common human nature.
It would come to quite different ethical conclusions.
I am referring to philosophical natural law ethics.
In fact, that ethics would conclude that all of those actions are unethical,
because they would lead to serious harm to people, and impede them from ever
reaching those common goals. You
see, different scientific definitions of "a human being" and when a
human being begins to exist lead necessarily to different philosophical
"anthropologies". Different
anthropologies lead necessarily to different philosophical "ethics" --
and therefore to different ethical conclusions.[25]
Mr.
Chairman:
Well, this is all much too deep for me.
We have a practical job
to complete here tonight -- to decide on the legislative language to be used in
these proposed bills on human cloning and human embryonic stem cell research.
I want some solid suggestions.
Dr.
"Science":
I would suggest that we make this bill a "ban" on all human
cloning using the somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) technique.
That technique, as you know, would produce a human clone with the exact
genetic information as is in the donor cell.
Dr. Human
Embryology: Objection,
Mr. Chairman. A human being cloned
using SCNT would not be an
"exact genetic copy of the donor cell".
The mitochondrial DNA of the donor cell is not transferred, and
the mitochondrial DNA of the recipient cell is retained in the product.
If you so scientifically mis-define the SCNT human cloning technique,
then it will not apply to the real SCNT technique at all -- isn't that correct,
Your Honor?
Jaded Judge:
As a matter of fact, that is the case.
The bill would only apply to those activities that are specifically
articulated in the language of the bill.
Dr. Human
Embryology:
And what about all of the other cloning techniques that can and could be
used to clone human beings? Why
aren't they specifically
articulated in the bill, Dr. "Science"?
Master
Bioethics:
There are no other cloning techniques.
What are you talking about?
Dr. Human
Embryology:
Come now, there are quite a number of other kinds of cloning techniques.
For example, there are: germ
line cell nuclear transfer;[26]
"twinning" (blastomere separation and blastocyst splitting)[27]
-- which is the most exact kind of cloning technique;[28]
the formation of chimeras (now by using pronuclei, or back-breeding to
new human embryos); and many other kinds of "de-methylation"
experimental techniques. As the
Jaded Judge explained, if these cloning techniques are not included in
the language of the bill, then they too will not be banned. In fact, a bill with such loopholes would effectively ban
no human cloning at all.[29]
Perplexed
Parliamentarian:
But let's be practical, Dr. Human Embryology.
First we need to get some bill passed, and then later we can come
back and refine it. What difference
does it make, as long as we can at least limit the evil bill proposed by
some of the other Parliamentarians?
Jaded Judge:
It makes a big difference, Perplexed Parliamentarian. Once this erroneous science gets passed into law, it is
simply reduced to stare decisis -- legal precedent.[30]
The Courts would then only have a legal duty to apply this erroneous
science to any and all further related legislation.
These scientific flaws may never be revisited for correction.
Prof.
Philos:
And I wonder, Perplexed Parliamentarian, can any and all "means"
be used to reduce or limit the evil in some other bill, or only morally licit
means? Does knowingly using
this false science and these linguistic loopholes in this bill constitute
morally licit means? This bill
would legally guarantee that any and all human cloning techniques would be
legally protected. These
"means" would ensure that untold numbers of innocent living human
beings would be able to be cloned and used in destructive experimental research.
How can that be "ethically" or "legally" acceptable?
Mr.
Chairman:
Well, I think we have debated these issues long enough.
It is time to roll up our sleeves now and actually write this bill so
that it can be submitted to the full Parliament tomorrow.
Let's unlock the door, take a short break, and come back here to go to
work in exactly 5 minutes.
Narrator:
The weary and bedraggled committee members slowly begin to collect their
piles of papers, stuff them in their briefcases, and singly file out of the dark
meeting room into the corridor, the various points of their heated discussions
weighing heavily on them. The
silence is deadening. Five minutes
later, the Chairman wanders back through the door, relocks it, and shuffles over
to the head of the long committee table. He
looks up to discover that the meeting room is quite empty!
Everyone else has simply disappeared, except for Well-Formed Conscience,
who is now patiently sitting across the table.
The Chairman's eyes begin to get a little twinkle in them.
Mr.
Chairman:
"Well, it's about time you got here, Well-Formed Conscience!
It's late -- let's get to work!"
![]()
[1]
Ronan O'Rahilly and
Fabiola Muller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York:
Wiley-Liss, 2001), p. 12.
[2]
Wilhelm His, Anatomie
menschlicher Embryonen (Leipzig: Vogel,
1880-1885).
[3]
FULL REFERENCES:
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization ...
is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new,
genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the
male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.
This remains true even though the embryonic genome is not actually
activated until 2-8 cells are present at about 2-3 days.
... Fertilization is the
procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a
secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of
maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division
of the zygote. ...
Fertilization takes place normally in the ampulla (lateral end) of the
uterine tube. (p. 31); ...
Coalescence of homologous chromosomes results in a one-cell embryo.
...The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization
and is identified by the first cleavage spindle.
It is a unicellular embryo and is a highly specialized cell.
The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results
in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus
the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." (p. 33);
"... [I]t is now accepted that the word embryo, as
currently used in human embryology, means 'an unborn human in the first 8
weeks' from fertilization'. Embryonic
life begins with the formation of a new embryonic genome (slightly prior to
its activation)." (p. 87) [O'Rahilly and Muller, 2001]
"Human
pregnancy begins with the fusion of an egg and a sperm, but a great deal of
preparation precedes this event. First
both male and female sex cells must pass through a long series of changes
(gametogenesis) that convert them genetically and phenotypically into mature
gametes, which are capable of participating in the process of fertilization.
Next, the gametes must be released from the gonads and make their way
to the upper part of the uterine tube [fallopian tube], where fertilization
normally takes place. ... Finally,
the fertilized egg, now properly called an embryo, must make its way into
the uterus ....." (p. 2); ...
"'Fertilization age' dates the age of the embryo from the time
of fertilization." (p. 23)
" ... In the female, sperm
transport begins in the upper vagina and ends in the ampulla of the uterine
tube [fallopian tube] where the spermatozoa make contact with the ovulated
egg." (p. 27) [Bruce M.
Carlson, Human Embryology & Developmental Biology (St. Louis:
Mosby, 1999)].
"In
this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the
formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes,
which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a
new individual. ... Fertilization
takes place in the oviduct [not the uterus]... resulting in the formation of
a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus.
Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point."
(p. 1); " ... These
pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of
the fertilized zygote. This
moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point
of embryonic development." (p.
17). [William J. Larson, Essentials of Human Embryology (New York:
Churchill Livingstone, 1997)]
"Human
development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a
female is fertilized by a sperm (or spermatozoon) from a male." (p. 2);
" ... but the
embryo begins to develop as soon as the oocyte is fertilized. "
(p. 2); " ... Zygote:
this cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm.
A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).
" (p. 2); "...
Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a
male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a
single cell called a zygote. This
highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a
unique individual.". (p. 18)
"... The usual site
of fertilization is the ampulla of the uterine tube [fallopian tube], its
longest and widest part. If the
oocyte is not fertilized here, it slowly passes along the tube to the
uterus, where it degenerates and is reabsorbed.
Although fertilization may occur in other parts of the tube, it does
not occur in the uterus. ... Human development begins when a oocyte is fertilized.
Fertilization ... begins with contact between a sperm and a oocyte
and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes of the
zygote, a unicellular embryo." (p.
34) [Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human:
Clinically Oriented Embryology (use 6th ed. only) (Philadelphia:
W.B. Saunders Company, 1998)]
"Of
verified pregnancies that have survived the first 4 postovulatory weeks, it
is generally maintained that 15-20% are lost through spontaneous abortion.
Under 4 weeks, however, the number is far larger and may be as high
as 40%. Many fertilized oocytes
fail to become implanted, and as many as one-third of those implanted may be
lost without being recognized. The total loss of conceptuses from fertilization to birth is
believed to be considerable, perhaps even as high as 50% to nearly 80%.
A high percentage of abortuses (30-80%, depending on the study) are
structurally abnormal, and it is maintained that all abortuses under 4
postovulatory weeks have abnormally formed embryonic tissue.
Most malformed conceptuses (more than 90%) are spontaneously aborted,
compared with the normal 18%. Thus,
spontaneous abortion greatly reduces the number of malformed fetuses
born." (O'Rahilly and
Muller 2001, pp. 92-93).
"Early
spontaneous abortions occur for a variety of reasons, one being the presence
of chromosomal abnormalities in the zygote.
Carr and Gedeon (1977) estimated that about half of all known
spontaneous abortions occur because of chromosomal abnormalities.
Hertig et al. (1959), while examining blastocysts recovered from
early pregnancies, found several clearly defective dividing zygotes ... and
blastocysts. Some were so
abnormal that survival would not have been likely.
The early loss of embryos, once called pregnancy wastage, appears to
represent a disposal of abnormal conceptuses that could not have developed
normally, i.e., there is a natural screening of embryos.
Without this screening, about 12% instead of 2 to 3% of infants would
likely be congenitally malformed (Warkany, 1981)."
(p.p. 42 - 43) [Moore and Persaud 1998].
[4]
For extensive scientific
references for these processes of gametogenesis and fertilization, see D.N.
Irving, "When do human beings begin? 'Scientific' myths and scientific
facts", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy
1999, 19:3/4:22-47.
[5]
"Gametogenesis is the
production of germ cells (gametes), i.e., spermatozoa and oocytes. ... The
gametes are believed to arise by successive divisions from a distinct line
of cells (the germ plasm), and the cells that are not directly concerned
with gametogenesis are termed somatic. ... The 46 human chromosomes consist
of 44 autosomes and two sex chromosomes:
X and Y. In the male the
sex chromosomes are XY; in the
female they are XX. Phenotypic
sex is normally determined by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome.
... During the differentiation of gametes, diploid cells are termed primary,
and haploid cells are called secondary, e.g., secondary oocyte.
Diploid refers to the presence of two sets of homologous
chromosomes: 23 pairs, making a
total of 46. This is
characteristic of somatic and primordial germ cells alike.
Haploid is used for a single set of 23 chromosomes, as in
gametes." [O'Rahilly and
Muller 2001, p. 19].
"A
subset of the diploid body cells constitute the germ line. These give rise
to specialized diploid cells in the ovary and testis that can divide by
meiosis to produce haploid gametes (sperm and egg). ... The other cells of
the body, apart from the germ line, are known as somatic cells ... most
somatic cells are diploid ... ." [Strachan and Read 1999, p. 28].
"Meiosis
is a special type of cell division that involves two meiotic cell divisions;
it takes place in germ cells only. Diploid germ cells give rise to haploid
gametes (sperms and oocytes)." [Moore
and Persaud 1998, p. 18].
"In a mitotic
division, each germ cell produces two diploid progeny that are genetically
equal." [Carlson 1999, p. 2].
"Like
all normal somatic (i.e., non-germ cells), the primordial germ
cells contain 23 pairs of chromosomes, or a total of 46. " [Larsen
1998, p. 4].
[6]
"Future somatic cells
thereby lose their totipotency and are liable to senscence, whereas germ
cells regain their totipotency after meiosis and fertilization."
[O'Rahilly 2001, p. 39]. "Early primordial germ cells are spared;
their genomic DNA remains very largely unmethylated until after
gonadal differentiation and as the germ cells develop whereupon widespread de
novo methylation occurs." [Tom
Strachan and Andrew Read, Human Molecular Genetics 2 (2nd ed.) (New
York: Wiley-Liss, 1999), p.
191]
[7]
"Cells differentiate
by the switching off of large portions of their genome."
[O'Rahilly 2001, p. 39]. "Gene
expression is associated with demethylation.
Methylation of DNA is one of the parameters that controls
transcription. This is one of
several regulatory events that influence the activity of a promoter;
like the other regulatory events, typically this will apply to both
copies of the gene." [Benjamin Lewin, Genes VII (New York:
Oxford University Press, Inc., 2000), p. 678;
also p. 603]. "Gene
regulation as the primary function for DNA methylation:
DNA methylation in vertebrates has been viewed as a mechanism for
silencing transcription and may constitute a default position."
[Strachan and Read, pp. 193 ff]
[8]"
The expression of genes is
determined by a regulatory network that probably takes the form of a
cascade. Expression of the
first set of genes at the start of embryonic development leads to expression
of the genes involved in the next stage of development, which in turn leads
to a further stage, and so on until all the tissues of the adult are
functioning." [Lewin, p.
63; also pp. 914, 950].
[9]
"Early mammalian embryogenesis is considered to be a highly regulative
process. Regulation is the ability of an embryo or an organ
primordium to produce a normal structure if parts have been removed or
added. At the cellular level,
it means that the fates of cells in a regulative system are not
irretrievably fixed and that the cells can still respond to environmental
cues." (pp. 44-49). ...
Blastomere removal and addition experiments have convincingly demonstrated
the regulative nature (i.e., the strong tendency for the system to be
restored to wholeness) of early mammalian embryos.
Such knowledge is important in understanding the reason exposure of
early human embryos to unfavorable environmental influences typically
results in either death or a normal embryo." (p. 46) [Carlson 1999]
[10]
"The embryo
enters the uterine cavity after about half a week
... Each cell
(blastomere) is considered to be still totipotent (capable, on isolation, of
forming a complete embryo), and separation of these early cells is believed
to account for one-third of cases of monozygotic twinning."
(p. 37) "... Biopsy of an embryo can be performed by removing one cell
from a 4-cell, or two cells from an 8-cell, embryo.
This does not seem to decrease the developmental capacity of the
remaining cells." [O'Rahilly
and Muller 2001, p.37]
"Of the
experimental techniques used to demonstrate regulative properties of early
embryos, the simplest is to separate the blastomeres of early cleavage-stage
embryos and determine whether each one can give rise to an entire embryo.
This method has been used to demonstrate that single blastomeres,
from two- and sometimes four-cell embryos can form normal embryos, ...
" (p. 44); " ... Some
types of twinning represent a natural experiment that demonstrates the
highly regulative nature of early human embryos, ..."
(p. 48); "...
Monozygotic twins and some triplets, on the other hand, are the
product of one fertilized egg. They
arise by the subdivision and splitting of a single embryo. Although monozygotic twins could ... arise by the splitting
of a two-cell embryo, it is commonly accepted that most arise by the
subdivision of the inner cell mass in a blastocyst.
Because the majority of monozygotic twins are perfectly normal, the
early human embryo can obviously be subdivided and each component regulated
to form a normal embryo." (p.
49) [Carlson 1999]
"If the
splitting occurred during cleavage -- for example, if the two blastomeres
produced by the first cleavage division become separated -- the monozygotic
twin blastomeres will implant separately, like dizygotic twin blastomeres,
and will not share fetal membranes. Alternatively,
if the twins are formed by splitting of the inner cell mass within the
blastocyst, they will occupy the same chorion but will be enclosed by
separate amnions and will use separate placentae, each placenta developing
around the connecting stalk of its respective embryo.
Finally, if the twins are formed by splitting of a bilaminar germ
disc, they will occupy the same amnion."
(p. 325) [Larsen 1998]
[11]
"[O]ther events are possible after this time [segmentation -- 14
days] which indicate that the notion of "irreversible
individuality" may need some review if it is to be considered as an
important criterion in human life coming "to be the individual human
being it is ever thereafter to be".
There are two conditions which raise questions about the adequacy of
this notion: conjoined twins,
sometimes known as Siamese twins, and fetus-in-fetu.
... Although conjoined
twins and fetus-in-fetu have rarely been documented, the possibility of
their occurring raises several points related to the notion of irreversible
individuality. Conjoined twins
arise from the twinning process occurring after the primitive streak has
begun to form, that is, beyond 14 days after fertilization, or, in terms of
the argument from segmentation, beyond the time at which irreversible
individuality is said to exist.
... Similar reasoning
leads to the same confusion in the case of fetus-in-fetu.
... One case recorded
and studied in detail showed that the engulfed twin had developed to the
equivalent of four months gestation and consisted of brain, bones,
nerve tissue, muscle and some rudimentary organs.
Microscopic study showed that engulfment had occurred at about four
weeks after fertilization, in terms of the argument for segmentation long
after the time when it is claimed that individuality is resolved."
[Her reference is: Yasuda,
Y., Mitomori, T., Matsurra, A. and Tanimura, T., "Fetus-in-fetu:
report of a case", Teratology 31 (1985), 337-41.]
[Karen Dawson, "Segmentation and moral status", in Peter
Singer, Helga Kuhse, Stephen Buckle, Karen Dawson, and Pascal Kasimba, Embryo
Experimentation (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1990), pp. 57-59].
"MZ
[monozygotic] twinning usually begins in the blastocyst stage, around the
end of the first week (before formation of the germ disc starting at 8
days).... Uncommonly,
early separation of embryonic blastomeres, (e.g., during the 2 - 8 cell
stages) results in MZ twins with two amnions, two chorions, and two
placentas that may or may not be fused. (p. 159);
... About 35% of MZ twins result from early separation of the
embryonic blastomeres; i.e.,
during the first 3 days of development.
The other 65% of MZ twins originate at the end of the first week of
development; i.e., right after
the blasocyst has formed [5-7 days]. Late
division of early embryonic cells, such as division of the embryonic disc
during the second week, results in MZ twins that are in one amniotic sac and
one chorionic sac." (p.
159); ...
If the embryonic disk does not divide completely, or adjacent
embryonic discs fuse, various types of conjoined MZ twins may form. ...
the incidence of conjoined (Siamese) twins is 1 in 50,000- 100,000
births." [Moore and
Persaud 1998, p. 161].
"Partial
duplication at an early stage and attempted duplication from 2 weeks onward
(when bilateral symmetry has become manifest) would result in conjoined
twins." (p. 30);
... Once the primitive streak has appeared at about 13 days,
splitting that involves the longitudinal axis of the embryo would be
incomplete and would result in conjoined twins."
[O'Rahilly and Muller 1994, p. 30]. ...
Similarly, after the appearance of the primitive streak and
notochordal process, any attempt at longitudinal division would be
incomplete and would result in conjoined [Siamese] twins. " (ibid,
2001, p. 55)
[12]
"Another means of
demonstrating the regulative properties of early mammalian embryos is to
dissociate mouse embryos into separate blastomeres and then to combine the
blastomeres of two or three embryos. The
combined blastomeres soon aggregate and reorganize to become a single large
embryo, which then goes on to become a normal-appearing tetraparental or
hexaparental mouse. By various
techniques of making chimeric embryos, it is even possible to combine
blastomeres to produce interspecies chimeras (e.g., a sheep-goat)."
(p. 45); "...
The relationship between the position of the blastomeres and their ultimate
developmental fate was incorporated into the inside-outside hypothesis.
The outer blastomeres ultimately differentiate into the trophoblast,
whereas the inner blastomeres form the inner cell mass, from which the body
of the embryo arises. Although
this hypothesis has been supported by a variety of experiments, the
mechanisms by which the
blastomeres recognize their positions and then differentiate accordingly
have remained elusive and are still little understood.
If marked blastomeres from disaggregated embryos are placed on
the outside of another early embryo, they typically contribute to the
formation of the trophoblast. Conversely, if the same marked cells are introduced into the
interior of the host embryo, they participate in formation of the inner cell
mass. Outer cells in the early
mammalian embryo are linked by tight and gap junctions ...
Experiments of this type demonstrate that the developmental potential
or potency (the types of cells that a precursor cell can form) of many cells
is greater than their normal developmental fate (the types of cells that a
precursor cell normally forms)."
(p. 45); " ...
Classic strategies for investigating developmental properties of embryos are
(1) removing a part and determining the way the remainder of the
embryo compensates for the loss (such experiments are called deletion
experiments) and (2) adding a part and determining the way the embryo
integrates the added material into its overall body plan (such experiments
are called addition experiments). Although
some deletion experiments have been done, the strategy of addition
experiments has proved to be most fruitful in elucidating mechanisms
controlling mammalian embryogenesis."
(p. 46). [Carlson 1999]
[13]
Many women, and men, assume that the "pre-embryo" myth is true,
and thus unfortunately believe contraceptive providers that swear that their
products could not possibly be abortifacient. However, it is a scientific fact that several so-called
"contraceptives" could possibly sometimes be abortifacient:
"Inhibition of Implantation:
The administration of relatively large doses of estrogens ("morning-after
pills") for several days, beginning shortly after unprotected
sexual intercourse, usually does not prevent fertilization but often
prevents implantation of the blastocyst.
Diethylstilbestrol, given daily in high dosage for 5 to 6 days, may
also accelerate passage of the dividing zygote along the uterine tube
(Kalant et al., 1990). Normally,
the endometrium progresses to the secretory phase of the menstrual cycle as
the zygote forms, undergoes cleavage, and enters the uterus.
The large amount of estrogen disturbs the normal balance between
estrogen and progesterone that is necessary for preparation of the
endometrium for implantation of the blastocyst.
Postconception administration of hormones to prevent implantation
of the blastocyst is sometimes used in cases of sexual assault or
leakage of a condom, but this treatment is contraindicated for routine
contraceptive use. The
'abortion pill' RU486 also destroys the conceptus by interrupting
implantation because of interference with the hormonal environment of the
implanting embryo.
"An intrauterine device (IUD) inserted into the uterus through the vagina and cervix usually interferes with implantation by causing a local inflammatory reaction. Some IUDs contain progesterone that is slowly released and interferes with the development of the endometrium so that implantation does not usually occur." (p. 58); ... [Question Chapter 2, #5 for students:] "#5. A young woman who feared that she might be pregnant asked you about the so-called "morning after pills" (postcoital birth control pills). What would you tell her? Would termination of such an early pregnancy be considered an abortion?" (p. 45); ... [Answer #5 for students:] "Chapter 2, #5. Postcoital birth control pills ('morning after pills') may be prescribed in an emergency (e.g., following sexual abuse). Ovarian hormones (estrogen) taken in large doses within 72 hours after sexual intercourse usually prevent implantation of the blastocyst, probably by altering tubal motility, interfering with corpus luteum function, or causing abnormal changes in the endometrium. These hormones prevent implantation, not fertilization. Consequently, they should not be called contraceptive pills. Conception occurs but the blastocyst does not implant. It would be more appropriate to call them 'contraimplantation pills'. Because the term 'abortion' refers to a premature stoppage of a pregnancy, the term 'abortion' could be applied to such an early termination of pregnancy." (p. 532); ... [Question chapter 3, #2 for students]: "Case 3-2: A woman who was sexually assaulted during her fertile period was given large doses of estrogen twice daily for five days to interrupt a possible pregnancy. If fertilization had occurred, what do you think would be the mechanism of action of this hormone? What do lay people call this type of medical treatment? Is this what the media refer to as the "abortion pill"? If not, explain the method of action of the hormonal treatment. How early can a pregnancy be detected?" (p. 59); [Answer Chapter 3, #2 for students:]: "Chapter 3-2 (p. 532): Diethylstilbestrol (DES) appears to affect the endometrium by rendering it unprepared for implantation, a process that is regulated by a delicate balance between estrogen and progesterone. The large doses of estrogen upset this balance. Progesterone makes the endometrium grow thick and succulent so that the blastocyst may become embedded and nourished adequately. DES pills are referred to as "morning after pills" by lay people. When the media refer to the "abortion pill", they are usually referring to RU-486. This drug, developed in France, interferes with implantation of the blastocyst by blocking the production of progesterone by the corpus luteum. A pregnancy can be detected at the end of the second week after fertilization using highly sensitive pregnancy tests. Most tests depend of the presence of an early pregnancy factor (EPF) in the maternal serum. Early pregnancy can also be detected by ultrasonography." [Moore and Persaud 1998, pp.