I thought I'd comment on the last flaw of the "Precautionary Principle" that Max listed:

"if conflicts with more balanced, common-law approaches to risk and harm."

The common law approach to risk and harm was best articulated in the 1947 case of United States vs. Carroll Towing Company. For that case Judge Learned Hand (great name for a judge, huh?) created a formula that has gone on to become one of the defining tests of negligence in law and a landmark of risk analysis in general.

http://www.bowman-brooke.com/CM/Publications/publications51.asp

Is the Burden of prevention of the harm (expressed in dollars) more or less than the Probability that the harm could occur (expressed as a percentage) * the foreseeable Loss if the harm were to occur (expressed in dollars) ?

Or

B > or P * L

If the burden of prevention costs more than the risk it seeks to offset, it is reasonable to accept the risk.

Some activities have a known cost. In embryonic stem cell research a days-old embryo will be destroyed in order to extract stem cells. The probability of such harm is 100%. Therefore, the question becomes, is the good that can be done worth the sacrifice?

Hand's formula only provides a framework for argument. There are always disagreement about the various values that are plugged into the formula. What is the real burden to society of restricting embryonic stem cell research and treatment? What is the cost of destroying a days-old embryo for research or treatment?

Dr. Michael West spoke of this cost comparison in his book, The Immortal Cell.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385509286/qid=1084547632/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1__i1_xgl14/104-
8624962-0159142?v=glance&s=books

In a 2002 debate Dr. West asked his opponent, who was representing the Catholic position, as between a child who needs stem cells to live or a days-old embryo that could provide them, "which death do you hate more?" The answer:

"Ultimately I think because we are here for an eternity and our life is a small thing, I would actually choose the option of death for the child, however tragic that may be as an individual or as a parent. Because ultimately we are what we do."

Michael West:

"I don't think I could have been more horrified if I had witnessed a murder... This doctor was willing to vacate his natural affection for the child in exchange for... [theological] doctrine."

Individuals like West and this doctor are miles apart on issues such as this, but society will be forced to choose on this and many other thorny biotech issues in the coming years. I believe that society will rely less on doctrine, religious or otherwise, than on some weighing of the practical benefits and the practical costs of embryonic stem cell use.

[Posted by: Stephen Gordon at May 16, 2004 8:26 PM]

Correction on the formula:

B >, =, or < P * L

[Posted by: Stephen Gordon at May 20, 2004 4:04 AM]

Before I share my opinion, let me share this:

Try as though I might, I do not as yet have the
continuous and vibrant personal relationship with Jesus Christ that other people have told me He demands.

I converted from Judaism to Methodism some years ago. I was suffering from inherited clinical depression my entire life, I was raised by an abusive family, and I had locked myself in a fortress of intellect for many long years uncounted simply to survive.

Five years ago I finally looked to Him for help during a time when my mind finally failed and my heart was the only thing left that could see. I therefore embraced Him as Lord and Savior during that moment, a time when I had nothing left but Him to hold onto for my sanity.

Since recovering my sanity, I have not been able to recover that moment since. I have since able to look to Him as my General, yet I have been able to recover that moment where I am able to look to Him, in the same manner as my one year old baby girl looks to me.

I therefore fear that I am not destined for Heaven, and am most likely destined for Hell. Steeling myself against that eventuality I therefore have resolved to do as many good things as I can on the way down.

The first of those things is to live an ethical life as best as I am able, and therefore the study of ethics is very important to me.

The second of those things is to be as loving and reliable a husband and father as I am able.

The third of those things is to point to others the road to Heaven even though I myself am unable to travel further.

It is a cold and lonely outpost I have taken in His Kingdom, yet it is the only place where I am fit to dwell.

While not Catholic myself, I have attended a Catholic university in my youth, and I do look to theologians of that faith as the preeminent experts on ethics.

In contemporary society, we have coined the phrase: "follow the money", as the means by which we detect the cause of a social problem. Roman Catholic ethics, by contrast, would demand the phrase "follow the motivation".

What possible motivation would a person have to indefinitely postpone the onset of death; either by diet regimen, medical treatment, genetic engineering, time dilation, or even by (ultimately) a stasis field?

In the view of Catholic ethics, the motivation can only be to avoid having to finally pay the accumulated wages of a life lived in sin.

Such a motivation betrays the basic character of the person as being essentially a libertine with a lust for more money, more power, and more of those temporal pleasures that life on Earth can bring.

I grew up as an alien, but I allowed Christ to adopt me as a human and I have learned some human ways under His care, and one of the things I have learned is that all things have limits. From this I know enough to know that anyone desiring eternal life on Earth rather than in Heaven has to be worse than an alien, that person indeed has to be a monster.

Please, don't become a monster. If you possibly can, live a human life like I try to do, and if you meet Jesus in your travels, say hello to Him for me. The soul you save might be your own.

The Eternal Squire

[Posted by: The Eternal Squire at October 28, 2004 11:14 PM]