Stem Cell Rx No Longer For Sale on Google

Perhaps once a week, I will be asked by a patient about the potential benefits of stem cells for reversing the normal affects of age, particularly with respect to arthritis of the knee joints, hip joints or the degenerative discs in the lumbar spine. I believe one of the reasons for this interest has come from increasing advertisements by various clinics in my region of East Tennessee claiming stem cells are the answer for these problems. My region is not unique. A simple Google search on “stem cells for knee pain” yields ads for clinics offering such treatment.

Stem cells are cells that have potential to become any type of cell in the human body such as a new blood cell, nerve cell or bone/cartilage cell. Scientists are rapidly learning how to find or create stem cells, as well as how to safely use them to replace old or missing cells, thus restoring function in worn out, damaged or diseased areas of the body. In fact, stem cells are presently used to replace the bone marrow for some individuals with certain cancers and disorders of the blood and immune system, and in many of these cases, the results are lifesaving.

The problem is that stem cell treatment remains yet unproven in all other medical conditions, including the age-related arthritis conditions which I treat. This lack of efficacy has not stopped clinics from offering and patients from receiving stem cell injections with the hope of achieving improved function or cure. I am willing to grant that many offer these treatments with the sincere hope and belief that they are acting in their patient’s best interest, though I suspect not all have the patient’s best interest in mind. Unfortunately, there have been severe adverse events. Examples include blindness following an injection of stem cells into the eye, and loss of function with development of a spinal cord tumor following stem cell injection into the spine.

The FDA is trying to educate the public and prevent stem cells from being offered for unproven treatments. The FDA has the authority in the US to stop these unproven treatments and take punitive action if needed. This is not to suggest that the FDA is in the business of preventing legitimate investigation into the potential benefits of stem cells, such as this Mayo Clinic Phase 1 study looking at the risks of injecting stem cells in to the cerebrospinal fluid of patients following a spinal cord injury to see if this particular stem cell technique causes harm (with future studies needed to determine benefit).

The FDA is recently getting some help from Google. On September 6th, Google announced it would stop accepting ads for unproven medical treatments, including stem cell therapies. It is early in the effort and the initial link above still has four ads for non-bone marrow stem cell treatments returned with the Google search. Maybe by the time you read this blog entry, the stem cell ads for unproven treatments will be gone.

I am hopeful that stem cells will eventually provide patients with safe therapies that repair injury and return patients to normal health. Offering that promise without the studies that prove such benefit is unethical and potentially harmful. It is good to see Google favoring human welfare over financial profit.

Two developments

A new effort at “somatic” gene editing in China is reported this week.  The key summary:

“As the researchers report in the New England Journal of Medicine,

[note to reader: subscription required]

they transplanted [blood stem] cells that had undergone CRISPR-based editing [of a gene that encodes for a receptor, or “docking station”] into a patient with HIV and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. While [the edited cells lasted for a long time in the bloodstream of the HIV-infected recipient], they only made up between 5 percent and 8 percent of blood cells. A higher percentage is needed for this to be an HIV cure…”

In “somatic” gene editing, mature cells, such as “adult stem cells” or diseased tissues, are gene edited for the purples of treating a fully-formed individual with a disease.  That is what appears to be in view here.  Similar efforts are in progress to treat sickle cell anemia and other genetic diseases.  The ethical issues are relatively well-understood, and fit within the regime of regulating cells-as-medicines in clinical trials of humans, under the ethical and regulatory regime that governs the latter.

That’s in contrast to “heritable” gene editing, which attempts to edit genes in embryos, fertilized eggs (zygotes), or gametes (sperm or eggs) with changes that would be passed on through the generations, as recent entries on this blog have been addressing.  The Chinese twin girls who were reported to have undergone gene editing late in 2018 are examples of an attempt at “heritable” gene editing.

A second report from Nature describes efforts to use human “reprogrammed” stem cells, aka pluripotent stem cells, to make human “embryo-like structures.”  This is distinct from making a human embryo, for example in IVF, then removing cells, likely destroying it, for use in research or to develop medical treatments.  In conservative commentaries in recent years, these “reprogrammed” stem cells are considered the “ethical embryonic stem cells,” because they can’t form a full individual and they don’t require creation and destruction of an embryo, that would under normal circumstances form a full individual.

Thing is, these “embryo-like structures” can still form something called a “primitive streak,” which, in normal embryos, is the first sign of formation of a nervous system.  The primitive streak usually forms 14 days after fertilization, so, to try to avoid concerns about research on embryos, scientists who think such research is ethical in limited circumstances have operated under a “14-day rule”–voluntary in the US, mandated by law in the UK–after which embryos would not be destroyed for research.  These “embryo-like structures” may form a primitive streak, it appears.  The situation is similar to “synthetic human entities with embryo-like features,” or “SHEEFs,” which may bypass the primitive streak but raise similar issues of whether something too like a natural human being is being engineered by this work for it to be ethical.

A developmental biologist at Caltech says, the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. “We will have to confront ourselves with the question of what is a human embryo, and whether these models really have the potential to develop into one.”  The researchers making these synthetic embryos argue that they lack a placenta and other cells needed for development, so could not develop into a person.

At least for now.

What Christian ethics is not

About this time in the semester, after discussing some basic things about the discipline of ethics and looking at some of the main ethical theories in western philosophical ethics, I begin a discussion of Christian ethics with the students in my bioethics class. I intend this to form a foundation on which they can ground their thinking about the issues in bioethics that we will discuss throughout the rest of the class. This year I decided to begin by talking about what Christian ethics is not, because we live in a world that has misunderstandings about many things including Christian ethics.

Here are the things that I have suggested to them that Christina ethics is not.

#1 It is not that we are better than they are (or that I am better than you are.)

Commonly when someone says that something is wrong, those who want to do it say that those who say it should not be done are trying to show that they are morally superior. I think this is a common motivation for making moral statements, but it should never be a part of Christian ethics. It contradicts what we, as Christians, believe. A fundamental part of the gospel is that we are all wrong. We are all sinful and in need of redemption. It is essential to our faith to believe that we are not better than anyone.

#2 It is not about what I think is right.

For those who believe in subjective relativism, ethics is truly about what I think is right. For the cultural relativist it is about what my group thinks is right. Even among many moral philosophers who believe in objective moral truth, whether they are Kantians or Utilitarians, ethics is about what I can determine to be right, based on my intellect and reason. From a biblical Christian viewpoint, it is what God thinks is right that is important. We are just trying to understand what he has revealed to us. None of us understands the mind of God completely. When we disagree, discussing why we think as we do can help us both get a better understanding of what God thinks about it.

#3 It is not about being good enough for heaven (or earning a relationship with God.)

Our society’s cultural religion says that as long as we do more good than bad, we can expect heaven as our reward. The Christian gospel says that our relationship with God and ultimate destiny are entirely dependent on Jesus’ death and resurrection. It is not about being good enough or doing more good than bad. So why do we care about ethics? Genesis says that we were created in the image of God. One of the things that means is that God intended to be a reflection of himself and his glory. Since God is a moral being who is good and we are sinful, we must be transformed to reflect God and bring glory to him.  Living morally upright lives through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit as people who have been reborn through Jesus’ death and resurrection allows us to worship God by living lives that reflect his goodness. That is what Christian ethics is.

Whose Body?

In 1923, Dorothy L. Sayers published her first mystery featuring Lord Peter Wimsey, entitled Whose Body?  The concern was that an adult body, wearing only a pince-nez, had been found in someone’s bathtub. Whose body was this? Was it the body of a well-known financier, who had recently disappeared? Or was it the body of someone else? Whose deceased body was this?

Slightly less than one hundred years later, the nation that Sayers called home has answered that question. As of Spring, 2020, in England, and a few months later in Scotland, deceased adult bodies are the State’s for purposes of organ procurement – unless they are in an “excluded group” or have registered an “opt out” decision.  The public is currently being assured that organ procurement will not apply to all who die, but only to those whose organs would be in a “usable condition”—primarily those dying in intensive care units or accident and emergency departments.

The law of “deemed consent” applies to all but these excluded groups:

  • Those under the age of 18
  • People who lack the mental capacity to understand the new arrangements and take the necessary action
  • Visitors to England, and those not living here voluntarily
  • People who have lived in England for less than 12 months before their death

The language of “deemed consent” is the iron fist in a velvet glove. According to the National Health Services’ FAQ page:

 If you have not recorded a decision either way and you are not in an      excluded group, your family will be approached and asked if they have any information about your organ donation decision. If no information is available, it will be considered that you consent to donate your organs and your family would be expected to support this.

Although the language of donation is used, gifts are what is “given.” To call what is “taken” or “coerced” a gift is to contort language into misrepresentation.

It is a conundrum the government is trying to solve. Every day, some people needing organ transplants die. Every day, some people with potentially transplantable organs die. Inviting people to decide whether or not they want to be organ donors, and register that decision, seems a reasonable step. But deciding that the government has the right to take organs upon death is overreach. Human organs are not property. We do not “own” our organs. Whether one views human beings as ensouled bodies or embodied souls, human organs are integral to those bodies.  The government did not give the people organs; it is an injustice – to the language and the people – to take human organs and call such “donations.”

Heritable genome editing: a too-short list of 12 questions

Last week, I discussed efforts by a US/UK commission formed to recommend a framework for regulating and monitoring heritable human gene editing.  This commission has called for “expert evidence” to assist them in the task “to develop a framework for considering technical, scientific, medical, regulatory, and ethical requirements for human germline genome editing, should society conclude such applications are acceptable.”  The deadline is September 27, 2019 to make recommendations.  The website to do so appears open to the public. 

Now, I suppose the commission will ultimately decide who qualifies as an “expert,” and several of the questions are decidedly technical.  But I submit that many who read this blog qualify as experts in bioethics or in some aspect of biomedicine, and will be able to offer considered responses to at least some of the questions.  So I encourage readers of this blog to access the link and weigh in.

I have yet to complete my effort.  I started last week, then pulled back in the middle.  Responses to each question appear to be submitted in real time, and the possibility to save work (there are ‘”back” and “next” buttons) for future editing seemed unclear.  And these questions merit careful responses.  So I decided to wait for another day—before the September 27 deadline!

If you would like to mull over possible responses in advance of trying to offer them online, I have copied them here, for advance thinking before submitting at the online portal, or to inform reflection and discussion otherwise:

  1. Which diseases and conditions, if any, do you see as appropriate for human germline genome editing?
  2. If there were to be an appropriate use case for human germline genome editing, what evidence would be needed to proceed to first in human use?
  3. What is the status of editing mechanisms for early stage human embryos (e.g., using different editing techniques, improving homology directed repair, etc.)? What are the factors that predict whether single nucleotide changes or other intended modifications in human embryos will be correct? To what extent will genome editing affect the viability of embryos?
  4. What is the status of the technology for validating that a correct edit (on target characterization) has been made and that unintended edits (e.g., off target effects, mosaicism, etc.) have not occurred in a range of cell and tissue types? If possible, please provide evidence drawn from work on induced pluripotent stem cells, embryonic stem cells, and/or early stage human embryos.
  5. What is the status of generating cell lines from human and non-human germline stem cells?
  6. How might animal models inform the editing in human embryos (inclusive of analysis of phenotypic correction)?
  7. To what extent do different genetic backgrounds affect success and phenotypic outcomes after genome editing?
  8. What is the success rate of full-term pregnancies following pre-implantation genetic diagnosis? What affects this (e.g., age, number of oocytes harvested, technique used, etc.)?
  9. What are the appropriate mechanisms for obtaining informed consent, long-term monitoring of the future children, assessing potential effects in subsequent generations, and addressing untoward effects? Are there best practices from: a) assisted reproductive technologies; b) pre-implantation genetic diagnosis; c) gene transfer research for children; d) mitochondrial replacement therapy; and e) somatic genome editing?
  10. How should we think about the inter-generational medical (e.g., genetic changes to the genome) and ethical implications of human germline genome editing (e.g., potential harms and benefits)? How should the rights of future generations and the wider human population be taken into account?
  11. What international oversight structures would need to be in place to facilitate, in a responsible way, a path forward for germline genome editing?
  12. Are there any topics or issues that are not covered by the above questions that you think the Commission should attend to during its deliberations?

This last question, of course, is the most pregnant of all.  The list of questions is so technical, so question-begging about whether heritable gene editing should be done at all, that the commission should receive carefully-considered reflections on the meaning of the potential enterprise, how the future practice of heritable genome editing should not be a foregone conclusion, and how and why the right answer to “when should we edit human genes heritably” might well be “never.”

By all means, reader of this blog, go online and offer what you reasonably can to this important discussion!

Medical care as I get older

I have been thinking about this for a while, and even more since I recently retired from practicing medicine (but not from teaching) and realized while working through our retirement plans that my current will contained instructions about who should care for our young children if my wife and I would both die. Well, those children are now 40, 37 and 34. They have their own children and will be fine on their own when we die. I need a new will and one part of that is that I need to decide who will make medical decisions for me when I am unable to do so for myself. All three of our children share my values and will make excellent decision makers for me, but I want them to have something to go by, so they understand how I want those decisions to be made. After all, I have been a physician for over 40 years and I teach bioethics, so I should be able to give them some guidance.

My decision to post these guidelines publicly is in part based on what Ezekiel Emanuel did about 5 years ago when he wrote about no longer doing any medical treatments that focus primarily on prolonging life after he turns 75. As Neil Skjoldal wrote a couple of days ago, Emanuel’s plans are driven by his concept of what makes life meaningful. My concept of that is different. Being creative and productive are important, but meaning in my life comes from my relationship with God, and that impacts how I want medical decisions made for me. So, here is what I wrote to my children.

Principles for making medical decisions for me when I become unable to make my own decisions:

  1. Every human life has value because we are made in the image of God, so nothing should be done with the intent of ending my life even to avoid suffering.
  2. Even though human life has great value my eternal relationship with God has greater value than my life on this earth, and that relationship will continue after my death, so it is not necessary to do everything possible to prevent my death.
  3. Decisions about medical treatment should be made based on whether the expected benefit to me is more than the expected burden to me from the treatment. They should not be made based on an idea that my life itself is burdensome.

Examples of how to apply these principles:

  1. If I am dying and death is expected soon, no treatment should be done other than comfort care. Sedation is appropriate if needed to control pain or behaviors that are harmful to me or others. Comfort care can usually be done outside of a hospital, but professional caregivers should be used as needed.
  2. Simple treatments such as antibiotics for an infection and minor surgical procedures should be done if it is expected that I will benefit from them and there is little risk involved.
  3. Complex treatments such as ICU care, ventilators, chemotherapy, major surgery and other invasive procedures should only be done if I have a reversible condition and it is expected that they will only be required on a short term basis. Such treatments can be done on a trial basis and stopped if they are not effective. This type of treatment should not be done if I have a condition that I am dying from and the treatment will only prolong the process of dying.
  4. The use of feeding tubes can be a difficult decision. Feeding tubes may be used if they can be used on a short term basis to help me recover from a reversible condition. If the condition I have is irreversible, I would prefer to be fed by mouth to satisfy my hunger and thirst as well as possible, even if feeding by mouth may have some increased risk.

Bioethics as Comedy

Sometimes comedy takes a cultural activity to its logical conclusion to reveal an absurdity that is so humorous everyone will talk about it. Sometimes a bioethical argument takes a cultural activity to its logical conclusion to reveal an absurdity that is ethically so troublesome hopefully everyone will talk about it. Recently, popular comedian Dave Chappelle combined the two.

Sponsored by Netflix and speaking at The Tabernacle in downtown Atlanta, Mr. Chappelle offered the following bioethical observation during his comedy monologue. I have removed all descriptive adjectives non-essential to his main argument. Speaking about abortion as a woman’s right to choose, he observed:

“I don’t care what your religious beliefs are or anything. If you …[are a man,]…you need to…[keep quiet]…on this one, seriously. This is theirs, the right to choose is their unequivocal right. Not only do I believe they have the right to choose, I believe that they shouldn’t have to consult anybody, except for a physician, about how they exercise that right.

Gentlemen, that is fair. And ladies, to be fair to us, I also believe that if you decide to have the baby, a man should not have to pay. That’s fair. If you can kill this…[baby,]… I can at least abandon them. It’s my money, my choice. And if I’m wrong, then perhaps we’re wrong.”

Mr. Chappelle comedically paired “My body, my choice” with “My money, my choice” and something well short of bioethical hilarity ensued. Regardless of what you think about his proposed moral equivalency, a simple Google search on the above quoted portion of his comedy monologue suggests this particular “bioethics as comedy” approach certainly has everyone talking.

For the record, I agree that he is right that both are wrong.

A meaningful life

The MIT Technology Review recently published an interview with Ezekiel Emanuel, chair of the University of Pennsylvania’s department of medical ethics and health policy, entitled “A doctor and medical ethicist argues life after 75 is not worth living.”  It appears to be a follow-up to a provocative article that Emanuel wrote in The Atlantic five years ago, “Why I Hope to Die at 75” (Emanuel makes clear in the interview that he did not choose that title.)

After stating that he is not advocating euthanasia, Emanuel makes some thought-provoking points in the interview.  For example, he observes that we don’t spend enough money on children: “one of the statistics I like to point out is if you look at the federal budget, $7 goes to people over 65 for every dollar for people under 18.”  To truly affect impactful change, it seems wise to focus on the health of children.

Emanuel also challenges the idea that a longer life span means a healthier life: “We’re having more disabilities.  We have people with more problems.  And even more important, for most people, is the biological decline in cognitive function.” For Emanuel, cognitive decline calls into question any advances made in average life span.  Apparently, 70 is not the new 50.

When asked about the ‘iconic innovators in Silicon Valley—people like Peter Thiel and Larry Ellison,’ Emanuel does not pull his punches: “. . . [T]hey’re fascinated with life extension [in general]? Naw, they’re fascinated by their life extension. They find it hard to even contemplate the idea that they are going to die and the world is going to be fine without them.”  Though somewhat pointed, Emanuel’s comments underscore some of the issues with individuals pursuing ‘immortality.’  Is it really for the betterment of society or an unhealthy preoccupation with self? 

To me, Emanuel’s most troubling remarks come when he addresses the issue of people who are active well into their 80s: “…when I look at what those people ‘do’, almost all of it is what I classify as play.  It’s not meaningful work.  They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking.  Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong.  But if it’s the main thing in your life?  Ummm, that’s probably not a meaningful life.”

Emanuel’s wish to die in his mid-70s reflects his interpretation of what a meaningful life is.  For him, meaning consists in doing research, publishing findings, and contributing to the academic community and by extension, the public life.  Even the thought of mentoring young people, though important, doesn’t appear to hold Emanuel’s interest for long.  

What constitutes a meaningful life?  While meaning is a very personal question, I would like to affirm the important role that the elderly play in our community.  Perhaps their ‘productivity’ is not the same as it used to be, and their health is in decline, but those are not adequate measures of meaning.  It seems to me that those who are well along life’s journey have much to share with their children and friends about living. There is meaning beyond this, of course, but at the very least it is a move away from the “be productive or die” perspective.

My hope is that society’s definition of meaning will eventually expand and more fully include people of all ages.

Much going on about heritable genome editing

The first meeting of the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing was held in Washington, DC on August 13.  This is a US/UK commission convened by the UK Royal Society, the US National Academy of Medicine, and the US National Academy of the Sciences.  Space for in-person attendance at these meetings appears limited, but information is freely accessible on the internet.  For example, the meeting materials and videos from the August 13 can be accessed here, and one can register to be on the Commission’s mailing list at this link. 

It is challenging for anyone with a “day job” whose work is not dedicated to the field of gene editing to try to keep up with developments, so the open access to information is welcome.  The August 13 meeting included numerous basic science discussions as well as some from biotechnology companies seeking to develop gene editing approaches.  As discussed often on this blog and elsewhere, so-called “somatic” gene editing—that is, gene therapy of fully-formed individuals by editing an undesirable gene such as one known to cause disease–appears generally to fall within the existing regime of human research ethics and regulation and pose relatively few unique ethical issues.   The day included industry presentations regarding somatic gene editing, either “in vivo”—involving injecting the gene editor into a person—or “ex vivo”—involving removing cells from a person, editing the cells in the medical lab, then re-injecting the gene-edited cells into the person’s body as a form of treatment.  In neither case is the editing inherited across generations, avoiding the larger issues of manipulating human beings more fundamentally, and, as your present correspondent has consistently argued, unacceptably.

Even for somatic gene editing, however, “getting it right” in the form of editing the genes intended, and only those, and developing approaches to assess and control for longer-term or unintended risks is still a substantial set of tasks, as was described in a presentation by an official from the FDA.

The day also included a presentation from the separate World Health Organization multidisciplinary advisory panel, which held its first meeting in March 2019 with another one having been due this week in Geneva, Switzerland.  At the March meeting, the WHO panel adopted three main recommendations for developing oversight of human genome editing:

  • Establish a structured mechanism for collecting and curating details about proposed and ongoing research;
  • “it would be irresponsible at this time for anyone to proceed with clinical applications [they mean trying to establish a pregnancy or birth] of human germline genome editing”
  • Establish approaches to obtain input from the “broadest possible range of stakeholders” and “explore opportunities for an open, online mechanism for seeking input.”

All that said, the Salk Institute in San Diego is working on a new technique of editing, called SATI (short for intercellular linearized Single homology Arm donor mediated intron-Targeting Integration [say THAT three times fast!], which is expected to be more versatile than the current “preferred” technique called CRISPR-Cas9.  Biologic details between the two differ, but the ethical issues mainly apply to applications, and are therefore the same for both.  But don’t be surprised if you hear about “SATI” for 5-10 minutes in the news sometime.

And scientists at Cornell Medical Center in New York City are trying to gene-edit human sperm to alter the characteristics of children conceived using them.  Pressing ahead with getting ready for the WHO panel’s “clinical applications.”

Mildred Solomon of the Hastings Center has recently added her voice to those pointing out that whether heritable human genome editing should ever be done is not just a matter of weighing benefits vs risks, but involves much more momentous possibilities that should give us pause.  The key graphs:

“Even as [the WHO and US/UK commissions] regroup to produce clearer guidance, however, I sense a shift in the debate. For a very long time, the scientific and bioethical consensus was that we must not do human germ-line modifications—that we should not change gametes and embryos in ways that would be permanent, affecting all future generations. In contrast, somatic modifications, which affect only the person in whom the edits are made, have been mainly uncontroversial.

But that border between germ-line and somatic genome modification is blurring; the zeitgeist feels different. There is a growing sense of inevitability that we will eventually do human germ-line modification and that our only obligation is to wait until it is safe. When that day comes, we may want to make permanent heritable changes to the human species to eradicate otherwise intractable diseases. We should, however, enter this discussion with eyes wide open, considering each application on its own merits and anticipating a wide range of issues that go well beyond safety. Many of these issues are explored in Human Flourishing in an Age of Gene Editing, which will be published by Oxford University Press on August 28, 2019.”

I’m willing to forgive the plug for a book from people at Dr. Solomon’s institution, which is where the editors of the book in question work.  It looks worth checking out.  In the meantime, the US/UK commission has called for “expert evidence” to assist them in the task “to develop a framework for considering technical, scientific, medical, regulatory, and ethical requirements for human germline genome editing, should society conclude such applications are acceptable.”  Follow this link to have a look at their questions.

Veil of Ignorance and Unrestricted Abortion

As a Christian, it seems to me that the most logically consistent application of justice is based upon the belief that all human beings bear the image of God, the imago Dei, and as bearers of the image, have equal human dignity, deserving of equal and just treatment by others, both morally and legally, regardless of our varying human attributes (as expounded here at page 163). I realize that not all human beings believe in this God so their systems of justice naturally differ from mine. Resolving conflicting understandings of justice is what makes the intersection of law and bioethics challenging. Currently, nowhere is this conflict so challenging as in the issue of unrestricted, elective abortion.

One such differing theory of justice is by the late John Rawls, in his 1971 Theory of Justice. Briefly, Rawls conceived arriving rationally at a theory of justice by conducting a thought experiment whereby rational persons would determine justice by conceiving it from an “Original Position” behind what he termed a “Veil of Ignorance”. At this Original Position, no one knows what eventual position they would subsequently hold in society, including wealth, health, class, education, minority status, religion and sex/gender. Since justice would be determined prior to one’s random subsequent placement in society, no decision from behind the Veil of Ignorance within the Original Position ought to favor one classification over another because no one would know in advance into what classification one might fall. No one religion would be favored since one might not believe in that religion or any religion at all. No one racial group or sex/gender would be favored since one might not be included in that group or sex/gender.

So what does the Theory of Justice have to say about elective abortion? Interestingly, Rawls himself only wrote once parenthetically on the subject of abortion as it pertained to his theory. It was a very brief footnote in support of abortion, unfortunately not a rigorous defense. As one might expect, different people have used Rawls’s theory to support or refute abortion. I have included links to two such example position papers (RawlsAbortionPro and RawlsAbortionCon). Both of these papers (and others like them) hinge on whether or not one believes the embryo or fetus has sufficient “personhood” or “moral potential”, qualifications that are indeterminate from within the Theory of Justice. Facts are preferred to beliefs when rationalizing from the Original Position behind the Veil of Ignorance, since one does not know in advance what one might believe once subsequently existing in society. Are there any facts that one might use from the Original Position to consider the Rawlsian justice of abortion regardless of one’s beliefs about personhood or moral status of the unborn?

Consider the following: EVERY actual human being invited by Rawls to step with him behind the Veil of Ignorance into the Original Position to determine justice MUST have already passed from conception through the stages of embryo, fetus, newborn infant and immature youth before reaching that nebulous stage of human development called personhood in order to receive the coveted invitation. For the sake of argument, let’s grant that Rawls only wanted the philosopher-kings, IQs above 180, possessors of the apex of personhood, Harvard, not Yale, to join him behind the Veil. Would any of these persons reasoning from the Original Position permit unrestricted, elective abortion of an otherwise healthy unborn human, given that the unborn human aborted might be one of them? The beliefs about the personhood or moral status of any of the earlier stages of development prior to personhood of these great thinkers are irrelevant. What is factually relevant is that all of these great thinkers must each pass through all these stages of development before achieving personhood. None would, from that Original Position, choose unrestricted, elective abortion of themselves to be a just outcome, simply because death has to be the worst of all social categories in which to land after leaving the Original Position. Or is that just my belief?

Treating all humans as equal image bearers of God regardless of any other human characteristics we might possess seems to me a better basis for a theory of justice than one rationally designed by our best and brightest fellow humans. Living that out is the real challenge.