POLITICIANS and public figures are often prone to using historical information in an irresponsible manner, twisting the facts around as a means of garnering support for their personal agendas. They do so without regard to political ideology, and their actions have a devastating effect on public opinion and policymaking. James Dobson, founder of the right-wing, pro-life Christian ministry Focus on the Family, is guilty of just this.
Recently, Dobson, who hosts a daily radio show with a worldwide audience of about 220 million listeners, drew a hasty comparison between the ethics of embryonic stem-cell research and that of Nazi experimentation on Holocaust victims. He insisted that, "If you wanted to take the time to read about [Nazi experimentation], there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind."
Dobson has deservedly become the subject of much criticism for making such remarks. And although he denies having suggested that good could have come from Nazi experimentation during the Holocaust -- in fact, his position condemns this type of research altogether -- his reflection remains insensitive and uninformed. While his followers might see a link between the fetus' potential for life and a viable, adult human being, Dobson's remark is at best disrespectful of any victim of Nazi experimentation.
For Jews and Holocaust survivors, a comment such as his strikes directly at the heart, as it distorts and mocks the issue's importance. Dobson alleged that when "you remove ethics and morality, and you get what happened in Nazi Germany." But this statement is ridiculous, even if one follows his line of thought. A rightful comparison cannot be drawn.
The experimentation which Nazi researchers conducted was reckless, as they had no qualms about torturing their subjects. Prisoners were subjected to freezing and high-altitude tests in order to determine the limits of human anatomy, were infected with Malaria and strains of streptococcus for pharmaceutical research purposes and had portions of their muscles, bones and nerves removed to test the body's capacity for tissue regeneration. Experimenters frequently poisoned their subjects, burned them, inflicted them with wounds and sterilized them. Nor did the researchers ever profess that their experiments had any moral quality in line with that phrase's current accepted meaning. Even if beneficial scientific advances had been made, they would have only been available to those whom the Nazis deemed worthy.
Embryonic stem-cell research, as it has been handled to date, presents a profoundly different situation. Scientists, doctors and politicians in favor of such research have consistently emphasized the value of human life, animating their work with an ethical quality and even suggesting a moral imperative. Embryonic stem-cell research has the potential to enhance the quality of life for the entire population, and researchers have taken care not to abuse or disrespect that gift. Ethical guidelines drawn up by the President's Council on Bioethics are specifically geared towards this goal. Conversely, the actions taken by Nazi experimenters intrinsically depreciated the sanctity of human life in their exploitations of human vulnerability.
When considered in light of the Nuremberg Code, a legal document drawn up in the wake of the World War II as a means of prosecuting Nazi war criminals, Dobson's comparison still fails to convince. The Nuremberg Code set standards for future human experimentation, requiring that subjects consent to testing and further specifying that researchers cannot perform any tasks which are known to permanently disable their subjects. But the situation is more complicated when the subjects are embryos, which are obviously unable to give consent.
Although inhumane research may produce some scientific advances, it is not worth the sacrifice of human dignity. While Dobson's camp offers that the destruction of an embryo also depreciates the value of human life, it fails to consider that the potential for life which may result from such research suggests that proponents of embryonic stem-cell research do indeed place a high value on life itself. Our current federal regulations require that all embryos are used responsibly, in order to maximize benefit and discourage reckless harm. The potential for life is thus handled with the utmost care and respect under these circumstances.
Todd Rosenbaum's column usually appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at trosenbaum@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
