Appendix G. 
265 
Endnotes 
' Given the current status of technology, deriving human embryonic stem cells 
requires destroying embryos. If the cells could be derived without the destruction of 
embryos or if parthenogenetically stimulated eggs produced stem cells, issue of status 
would almost certainly fade. Nevertheless, serious ethical issues would still remain. 
This is one reason I believe it is a mistake to focus narrowly on embryo status. 
^ Gene Outka has argued that there is an "internal coherence" to views of the 
embryo, issues of complicity, and views on adult stem cell research (Outka, 2002). 
^ Although the HERP report claimed that "it is not the role of those who help form 
public policy to decide which of these views [of the embryo] is correct, there is little 
doubt that the panel adopted the pluralistic view. For that reason, most 
commentators found the above claim disingenuous. 
^ Compare, for example, the various statements that Richard M. Doerflinger has 
made on the U. S. bishops’ behalf. See Doerflinger, 1988, 1998, 1999, 2001. Margaret 
Farley has argued that the Catholic preoccupation with abortion has eroded its 
credibility on other important social issues, including stem cell research. (See Farley, 
2000 ). 
® Another debate that is at least partly shaped by focusing on embryo status 
revolves aroimd the question of complicity. For example, supporters of stem cell 
research may harbor a residual uneasiness about endorsing the destruction of human 
embryos, at least if the number of articles in the literature explaining the concept of 
complicity with wrongdoing is any indication. John Robertson, Ronald Green, and 
Thomas Shannon, have all written on the issue of cooperation with evil in relation to 
stem cell research. (Robertson, 1999; Green, 2002; Shannon, 2001; see also Kaveny, 
2000; and Gilliam, 1997). To be sure, the issue of complicity or cooperation with 
wrongdoing is a very traditional one in moral philosophy and theological ethics. Still, 
if the early embryo does not deserve the respect accorded persons and if destroying 
the embryo is compatible with respecting it, then deriving stem cells is not an act of 
wrongdoing and issues of complicity do not arise. 
® Cahill also emphasizes the way a liberal individualist view of the person 
discounts the significance of embodiment. I will return to this point below. 
’ That both those who view the embryo as a person emd those who do not but 
who insist on respect for the embryo, have been remarkably cavalier with regard to 
the use of embryos in IVF programs can be seen by the fact that there are currently 
over 400,000 embryos frozen in the United States, a number we did not even know 
imtil quite recently (Hoffman et al. in association with The Society for Assisted 
Reproductive Technology and RAND, 2003). 
® In a commentary published in Nature , in September 2001, Edwards writes: "On 
the verge of clinical application, stem cells offer a startlingly fundamental approach to 
alleviating severe incurable human maladies. Fondly believed to be a recent 
development, they have in fact been part and parcel of human in-vitro fertilization 
(IVF) from as long ago as 1962." 
® Dorff s responsum was accepted by the Committee on Law and Standards by a 
vote of twenty-two to one in March 2002. On the basis of Dorffs responsum the 
PRE -PUBLICATION VERSION 
