Destroy, Let Die, or Grow the Embryo Further? Puzzles Raised by the 14-Day Rule and Other Time Limits for Embryo Research.

Abstract

Supporting the 14-day rule or other embryo research time limits raises puzzling questions for those wishing to protect older embryos (or indeed, more developed human subjects). What are, or should be, our more immediate aims in setting or implementing such time limits? May death for the research subject be sought as the limit approaches? If the embryo is worth protecting, is it in the embryo's interests to be sustained by a scientist, albeit for instrumental reasons? Should embryo research, including observational research, be prevented, despite the embryo's interest in living further? This paper argues that the aim to prevent more prolonged experimentation, while reasonable, should not be promoted via the means of deliberately arranging the embryo's death. Time limits can encourage such intentions, even if they do not require them. The case is made that while a regulatory status quo should not be amended in favor of a worse alternative, there are several morally preferable options with which the 14-day rule or more permissive alternatives might be replaced.