Madam, - The letter of May 2nd from Professors Desmond O'Neill and Martin Clynes raises some important considerations about our understanding and treatment of neuro-degenerative illnesses of later life. However, it also attributes to the Irish Council for Bioethics a view of the person that is misleading.
The council's recently published report on embryonic stem cell research is widely available for inspection. Its findings have no detrimental implications whatsoever with respect to a continued commitment to care for people with neuro-degenerative illness in the most appropriate and progressive ways. Indeed, it is hard to see how anyone could object to the thoughtful observations of Profs O'Neill and Clynes on that matter. However, their assumption that the council adopts a "utilitarian, hypercognitive" approach to personhood is untrue. The danger of such a view, as they rightly point out, is that it can weaken our commitment to the wellbeing and care of people with neuro-degenerative illness. Such a view can also be used to justify infanticide. It is not a view that the council adopts, nor has any sympathy for. Indeed, in our recent report we express the view that qualifying for personhood is not necessary for attribution of moral status or moral value to the embryo.
A salient difference between issues at the beginning of life and issues toward the end of it is that, up to a point at the beginning of life, one cannot logically attribute personhood on any definition one might like to choose. This is because, up to about day 13 of development, the embryo can divide into two in the case of twins, or more in cases of multiple births. Clearly, a person is something to which it is necessary to attribute unity. Hence, it is dubious to attribute personhood in any sense at this very early stage of life. Even the most conservative thinkers, such as Elizabeth Anscombe, acknowledge this and, whatever inferences one might like to draw from it, the point is that issues to do with the early embryo are clearly set apart from issues to do with later life. By implication, assumptions about the council's views on issues to do with later life should not be drawn from its recent report.
There are many other differences between issues at the beginning of life and issues toward its end, which reinforce the point that they should be treated separately. It is also worth noting that being hopeful about the future therapeutic applications of stem cell research is not in the slightest bit incompatible with a strong desire to see a society that is more inclusive and sympathetic with respect to all of its members. The council's report encourages reflection on these and other issues. - Yours, etc,
Dr RICHARD HULL, Dr SIOBHÁN O'SULLIVAN, Irish Council for Bioethics, Harcourt Centre, Harcourt Road, Dublin 2.