Cloning Stem Cells From Cloned Embryos Case Study

Another supplementary argument can be made on the topic of medical advancements made possible through the cloning process, mankind will be provided with organs and cells with which human’s lives will be saved. If a person needs an organ transplant the normal means of transplantation would involve the removal of an organ from another person. This organ could be rejected and many complications could arise, often with deadly repercussions. Human cloning would involve using the person’s own cells that could be cloned to produce a healthy, normal organ for use in the person. Through this process, there would be no

This report describes how ethics involving embryos has been ongoing for 25 years but has significantly increased with the stem cell controversy. Another issue brought up by this report is whether or not federal funds should be spent on an issue that is so ethically

Embryonic stem cell research is a controversial topic nationwide, because of its clash of ethical and moral values. Many people, including those suffering from diseases that this research is seeking to cure, do not believe in killing a living embryo in order to advance research and science.

There are people who disagree on the morality of using human embryonic cells, and stem cell research in general, nonetheless. Some stubborn pro-life organizations insist that the destruction of the “blastocyst, which is a laboratory-fertilized human egg” (White), is on the same level as murdering a human child and is entirely immoral and unacceptable. Even if these embryonic cells are being used to save lives and cure diseases, they believe it is wrong because the cells were taken at the cost of a

The introduction and expansion of embryonic stem cell research initiated a highly debated ethical topic. Can our society agree to disagree? What are embryonic stem cells? What are stem cells? Is all stem cell research considered abortion? Debates surrounding embryonic stem cell research is further complicated by social standards and needs, religious beliefs, and personal morals.

Although Manninen argues that stem-cell research utilizing embryonic tissue should not be conducted, she also explains certain scenarios where it would be morally acceptable. She mentions the “Principle of Waste Avoidance” and the “Nothing Lost Principle” which support the idea that embryos may be utilized for this research, only under the circumstances that it would prevent the embryos from otherwise being disposed.

Society tends to only focus on the black and white when it comes to controversial issues and forgets about the gray area that is almost always there. Embryonic stem cell research and treatment is no exception to this phenomenon. Kristina Hug writes about what she believes to be the four arguments for the ethical dilemmas surrounding stem cell research in her article titled “Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Ethical Dilemma”. Like the authors of the previous article mentioned said, Hug agrees that the two moral principles that stem cell research forces us to choose between are the duty to respect the embryo versus the duty to protect the sick. However, they offer other views along the spectrum and reasons why people are for and against each viewpoint. The first viewpoint provided states that “the embryo has full moral status from fertilization onwards”. It says the criteria for ‘personhood’ is notoriously unclear and different people define what makes a person a person in different ways. Ones who agree with this statement argue that development from an embryo into a baby is an ongoing process and it is impossible to pinpoint when exactly personhood begins. They also argue that an embryo is simply a person in the embryonic stage and although it does not currently have the characteristics of a person, they will eventually become a person and should be given the same rights and respect people receive. The second viewpoint states that “there is a cut-off point at fourteen days after fertilization”. The source says that some people argue that a human embryo deserves special protection from around day fourteen after fertilization. A reason why people argue that point is that fertilization is a process, not a ‘moment’ and an embryo in the earliest stages is not yet clearly defined as an individual. The third viewpoint in this

Abstract: Religion has played a key part in the battle for embryonic rights. Pope John Paul II has spoken out against stem cell research; however, Buddhist leaders and the Episcopal Church have taken a stand for stem cell research. Different religions have different opinions about stem cell research. However the controversy can never really be solved because it is so hard to define the line of morality when talking about stem cells and embryos.

The ethics of research involving fetuses or material derived from fetuses have been widely debated for over three decades, portrayed by its proponents as holding the key to scientific and medical breakthrough and by its opponents as devaluing the most basic form of human life. The latest chapter in this long saga involves the use of embryonic stem cells. Research in this field took a great leap forward in 1998, when the first successes in growing human stem cells in culture were reported independently by Drs. James Thomson and John Gearhart. According to the National Institutes of Health, embryonic stem cell research "promises...possible cures for many debilitating diseases and injuries, including Parkinson 's disease, diabetes, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, burns, and spinal cord injuries. The NIH believes the potential medical benefits of human pluripotent stem cell technology are compelling and worthy of pursuit in accordance with appropriate ethical standards (National Institutes of Health 2000). Research in this new and developing field has sparked controversy centered on the moral implications of destroying human embryos and poses several compelling ethical questions. Among them: Does life begin at fertilization, in the womb, or at birth? Might the destruction of a single human embryo be justified if it can alleviate the pain and suffering of many patients?

For decades, researchers’ use of stem cells has caused a controversy and the consideration of the ethics of research involving the development, usage, and destruction of human embryos. Most commonly, this controversy focuses on embryonic stem cells. Not all stem cell research involves the creation, usage and destruction of human embryos. For example, adult stem cells, amniotic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells do not involve creating, using or destroying human embryos and thus are minimally, if at all, controversial. Many less controversial sources of acquiring stem cells include using cells from the umbilical cord, breast milk, and bone marrow. (Brunt, 2012) In 1998, scientists discovered how to extract stem cells from human embryos. This discovery led to moral ethics questions concerning research involving embryo cells, such as what restrictions should be made on studies using these types of cells? At what point does one consider life to begin? Is it just to destroy an embryo cell if it has the potential to cure countless numbers of patients? Political leaders are debating how to regulate and fund research studies that involve the techniques used to remove the embryo cells. No clear consensus has emerged. Other recent discoveries may extinguish the need for embryonic stem cells. With this in mind, we will discover both sides of the issue from a pros and cons point of view. Stem cell research has expanded at an exponential rate, but its therapeutic

The embryos that are not implanted basically waste away and are of no use. Advocates of stem cell research argue that these embryos should be used to help people. The opposing side continues to argue that using embryos is unethical. According to the National Academy of Sciences, researchers hope that “harnessing the capabilities of stem cells could then help repair damaged and diseased organs or provide alternatives to organ transplants. Stem cell therapy could offer hope for the millions who suffer from spinal-cord injuries, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and other disorders.”13 Keeping this information in mind, it would be difficult for many people to be against this research. As a result, a Harris poll was conducted and found that 73% of Americans support the research, and there is a majority support among Republicans. The opposing side of the poll believes the research is immoral fell from 32% to 15% over only three years.14 As public opinion becomes more and more overwhelmingly positive, the demand for this research also

While there are many theories of the benefits we could gain by using embryonic stem cells, it has brought many ethical dilemmas and arguments. Many feel that the use of embryos for science is morally wrong and equal killing an unborn baby. This is usually followed by the idea that we shouldn’t “play god” nor allow embryos to be used for research. On the other hand,

Embryonic stem cells research has challenged the moral ethics within human beings simply because the point at which one is considered a “human,” is still under debate and practically incapable to make a decision upon.

A huge number of scientists are not necessarily interested in producing human clones; their primary goal is to use some exceedingly young embryos to obtain cloned human cells capable of curing diseases. There is no doubt that cloning provides an array medical possibilities, including transplanting of vital organs damaged during an accident. Another possible scenario would be the supposition that a person would become sick with a disease that

3. OVER-POPULATION AND PRESSURE ON NATURAL RESOURCES:If large-scale cloning is practiced, it will lead to massive population expanse.