Embryonic Research

This proposal is immoral because it violates a central tenet of all civilized codes on human experimentation beginning with the Nuremberg Code: It approves doing deadly harm to a member of the human species solely for the sake of potential benefit to others. The embryos to be destroyed by researchers in this campaign are at the same stage of development as embryos in the womb who have been protected as human subjects in federally funded research since 1975.(4) President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) and its 1994 predecessor, the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel, conceded that the early human embryo is a form of developing human life that deserves our respect(5). Treating human life as mere research material is no way to show respect.

Through change and uttermost struggle, the people who care about a subject always seem to push through for what they believe in. For the sake of Embryonic Stem Cell research, the advocates tried their best to show the advancements stem cells may withhold, and for the people who disagree with the research, always seemed to put a new light on the subject, simply humanizing the research. Although the destruction of a human embryo is not something many people would view as ethical, it is something that could hold much promise for those who suffer from terminal illnesses (Sherley). When the miracle of assisting those who could not reproduce children through In Vitro Fertilization transpired the world of stem cell research was acquired (Tauer 924).

If human embryo has no moral worth, then it should be created solely for destruction. With such act, abortion could be identify as moral good and whoever wants to abort her own child will be free of doing so. Researchers didn't foresee that it could lead to mental disability to women redeeming the abortion.

Embryonic Research consists of manipulating embryos and stem cell to make medical discoveries, although this may sound wonderful many people consider it unethical. Genes and Embryos have become the subject of intense public discussions, as the achievements and medical discoveries in the categories of embryology and genetics not only increase our knowledge, but open up new possibilities to influence homosapiens in a certain novel way. Embryos play a major part in the scientific world. To create a normal stem cell line as a basis to go by, scientist begin with a fertilized embryo, the embryo is usually discarded from an in vitro fertilization clinic, or they can create a germ line by the use of therapeutic

This proposal is immoral because it violates a central tenet of all civilized codes on human experimentation beginning with the Nuremberg Code: It approves doing deadly harm to a member of the human species solely for the sake of potential benefit to others. The embryos to be destroyed by researchers in this campaign are at the same stage of development as embryos in the womb who have been protected as human subjects in federally funded research since 1975.(4) President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) and its 1994 predecessor, the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel, conceded that the early human embryo is a form of developing human life that deserves our respect(5). Treating human life as mere research material is no way to show respect.

Reproductive technology has advanced in recent years and with that advancement has come a debate on what is ethical, moral or beneficial to those who are involved. Applying the principles of ethics to reproductive technologies can aid health professionals toward the best outcome for everyone involved. With applying the ethic principles, one must first choose whose welfare that is being considered-the potential parents, the embryo, or both? An embryo is not able to convey autonomy, but people still consider its welfare anyway. There are existing conflicts as to when during development does an embryo become a human being that has rights. There are many who want

Francois Rabelais, the famous Renaissance humanist, once said, “Science without conscience is the death of the soul” (Rabelais, Francois). Since the late 1960’s, this has been the stance for opponents of embryonic stem cell research. This is saying, if we are willing to take a fertilized embryo and kill it before it has even had time to develop, where is our conscience, our heart? We consider this form of stem cell research to be immoral and unethical. Scientists are looking for alternatives to this method of harvesting stem cells, similar to adult stem cell research, to provide a better, more humane approach to this breakthrough in science and medicinal therapy.

In the Declaration on the Production and the Scientific and Therapeutic Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cells, the Pontifical Academy for Life presents the field of stem cell research with a statement regarding the official Roman Catholic position on the moral aspects of acquiring and using human embryonic stem cells. They have declared that it is not morally legitimate to produce or use human embryos as a source of stem cells, nor is it acceptable to use stem cells from cell lines already established. Thus, bringing up the conflicting topic concerned with the point in time in which a human embryo becomes more than a simple mass of cells, but a human individual with a well defined identity. Gerard Magil and William B. Neaves, in their paper Ontological and Ethical Implications of Direct Nuclear Reprogramming has conflicted the Academy’s position on stem cell research with an alternative understanding of adult stem cells. In what follows, I will argue that the Academy does not adequately defend the Church’s standpoint on stem cell research. However, I will also suggest that even if the Church’s position were accepted, this would not provide an adequate solution to the ethical question revolving around stem cell research.

The specific objective of this major essay is to clarify and summarise the controversial debate concerning the ethical decency of embryonic cloning for therapeutic purposes. This is the form of cloning that is supposedly beneficial to a barrage of medical applications. We will identify the key opposing ethical perspectives such as those of the justification of embryonic research based on the normative theory of consequentialism. This paper will also probe into the relatively brief history of the debate while gauging the particular stumbling blocks of disagreement which bioethicists have arrived at. The topical aspects of therapeutic cloning will be closely studied by weighing the pros and cons and gaining a greater understanding of the

Bioethics leads us to question when humanity makes decisions which could be considered questionable and/or not in the best interest of future generations. Pregnancy is a top near and dear to us all; even when it is not considered so for we all are by products of pregnancy. “Pregnancy and childbirth have become increasingly medicalized in most parts of the world since the early twentieth century.” (Kukla and Wayne, 2011).

“However , the statistics says that around 40 million couples of childbearing age who live in united states, 8.5% are involuntarily infertile”(Goldworth). Obviously, many more infertile couples around the world can be added to the list. For those couples, in vitro fertilization (IVF) offers new promise. This promise is not without its critics. Nevertheless the fact that many infertile couples are willing to spend thousands of dollars and risk the physical and mental demands of IVF rather than adopt a child suggest a strong emotional need for biological offspring that is not influenced by social pressure. “The first human embryonic stem cells, hESC line was derived in 1998, and introduced the main debatable topic worldwide. Opponents of hESC research argue that because the embryo is capable of developing into a human being, it has significant moral standing. Therefore, its destruction is unethical. While, on the hand proponents of hESC research deny that the embryo has any moral status, others grant it limited moral status but argue that the value of this limited status is far outweighed by the potential benefits”(King, Nancy MP, and Jacob

These developments may lead to great discoveries about the earliest phases of life, but without proper ethical measures, it could also lead to a very dangerous trend. Niakan’s application has yet to be reviewed, but it is expected that she obtains the license to carry out her research so long as embryos are destroyed within 14 days. She sustains that her research will not lead to a slippery slope due to the strict regulations in Britain in regards to fertility, so her experiments would be carried out in with utmost care and for the sake of science and advancement alone.

Modern Technologies have given rise to preserving family’s lives and heritage all over the globe. One such technology is posthumous conception which involves harvesting and freezing or genetic manipulations like In-Vitro fertilization, Artificial Insemination, and Cryopreservation of gametes (eggs and sperm) and embryos. Numerous families have benefited from posthumous conceptions, but not without raising ethical questions and concerns (Soules, 1999). Posthumous reproduction is an issue that triggers legal, religious, and ethical debates (Knapp et al, 2011). The following will explore some of the ethical issues and implication surrounding embryo harvesting and genetic manipulations and the impact it has on stakeholders such as nurses, and the role the laws plays as well as the effects on the family dynamics and their future while describing ethical theories and/or principles and will summarize the social values, morals, norms, nursing practice that applies to the topic.

This proposal is immoral because it violates a central tenet of all civilized codes on human experimentation beginning with the Nuremberg Code: It approves doing deadly harm to a member of the human species solely for the sake of potential benefit to others. The embryos to be destroyed by researchers in this campaign are at the same stage of development as embryos in the womb who have been protected as human subjects in federally funded research since 1975.(4) President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) and its 1994

New technological advances and scientific methods continue to change the course of nature. One of the current controversial advances in science and technology is the use of genetically modified embryos in which the study exceeds stem cell research. Scientists have begun planning for research involving human embryos in the genetic modification field. Many technological developments are responsible for improving our living standards and even saving lives, but often such accomplishments have troubling cultural and moral ramifications (Reagan, 2015). We are already beyond the days in which virtually the only procreative option was for a man and a woman to conceive the old-fashioned way (Reagan, 2015). Genetic modification of human embryos can be perceived as a positive evolution in the medical process yet it is surrounded by controversy due to ethical processes. Because this form of genetic modification could affect later born children and their offspring, the protection of human subjects should be a priority in decisions about whether to proceed with such research (Dresser, 2004). The term Human Genetic Engineering was originally made public in 1970. During this time there were several methods biologists began to devise in order to better identify or isolate clone genes for manipulation in several species or mutating them in humans.