Closing the Slippery Slope from a 14-Day Rule to an N-Day Rule

Introduction to the Slippery Slope in Bioethics

A common point of contention in bioethics discourse is whether a metaphorical “slippery slope” exists for human experimentation that is allowed despite moral objections from some members of the public, including scientists. Scientists and their affiliated bioethicists who promote controversial research assure the public that, if they are allowed to proceed with human experimentation that is morally objectionable for some, their future research will not, as a result, progress further to human-subjects research that is even more morally troubling. They often scoff that opponents’ warnings – that allowing the controversial research will put society on a harder-to-stop slide downward to even worse abuse and exploitation – are only a debate device, and not potential realities calling for serious attention or concern.

However, the current moment in the history of research with embryonic human beings confirms quite definitively that slippery slope warnings are not just a contrived debate strategy. They are valid and instructive concerns that must be heeded to save humanity from falling into the temptation of allowing horrific depravities to occur based on the justification that they are for the sake of promised benefits of medical research.

Defining the 14-Day Rule

The “14-day rule” is an ethics agreement, generally adopted and accepted by scientists pursuing experimentation with embryonic human beings as research subjects. Regarding its history, its origin dates back to 1984. The basic agreement is that scientists are allowed to conduct laboratory experiments that involve the growth and development of embryonic human beings up until 14 days of maturation after fertilization. This specific 14-day limit is related to the approximate time in normal human embryonic development when structures appear in developing human beings that are the earliest stages of the formation of the nervous system.

The Ethics of Embryonic Experimentation

This ethics agreement is the warned slippery slope of allowing experimentation on embryonic human beings at any stage of their life. In contrast to the current limit, the moral position was for a “0-day” rule. It called for an ethics agreement that experimentation with nascent human beings, who due to their young age of development could not give informed consent, was morally unacceptable and therefore ethically impermissible.

The establishment of the 14-day rule per se was, and continues to be, a typical false dichotomy. It was presented by scientists wanting to conduct experiments with embryonic human beings as a better solution than having no limit at all. All sorts of irrelevant arguments were made to rationalize why stopping early at 14 days of development was more humane to the experimental subjects by, for example, intervening before pain or self-awareness might be experienced. Of course, such now storied debates served, and continue to serve, to distract from the more significant moral issue, which was, “What right did anyone have to experiment on another human being for any reason other than one intended to benefit the subject of the experimentation?”

Comparison of Bioethical Rules

The following table summarizes the primary differences between the established 14-day rule and the proposed moral 0-day rule based on the research material:

Consequences of the Ethics Agreement

The 14-day limit has become a central point in the discussion of fetal tissue, stem cells, and bioethics. As noted in this research, many arguments used to support the rule serve as a distraction from the fundamental rights of the experimental subject. The question remains whether the promised benefits of medical research justify the use of embryonic human beings as research subjects under these laboratory conditions.