Against the discarded-created distinction in embryonic stem cell research

The discarded–created distinction is the most popular middle-ground position in the embryonic stem cell debate. It holds that it is ethically permissible to derive and use embryonic stem cells from discarded in vitro fertilisation (IVF) embryos but not from embryos created especially for research. I first argue that the arguments of beneficence and proportionality in support of using discarded IVF embryos show there is a presumption against the discarded–created distinction. I then consider how one might nevertheless defend the discarded–created distinction by appealing to arguments that may override this presumption. I argue that the nothing-is-lost argument fails to do this. By using discarded IVF embryos, one legitimizes and thus indirectly encourages the destruction of embryos in IVF as well as in research, so something is lost by destroying discarded IVF embryos. I further argue that the argument that the moral costs of destroying embryos in IVF are smaller than those of destroying research embryos for research does not hold either. I conclude that since there is a presumption against the discarded–created distinction, as long as no good argument has been adduced in support of it, we should reject it as a sound ethical position.