Embryonic Stem Cell Research And The American Society

Imagine a world free from disease. The idea of a utopian society has been far from reality until the research from embryonic stem cell therapy surfaced. Since former president George W. Bush banned federal funding on embryonic stem cell research in 2001 it has caused a halt in advancements and caused controversy in the public. According to an article by Beau Watts, an accredited physician; embryonic stem cells are pluripotent cells (Beau Watts). This means they have not decided what function they perform yet. Since the cells do not know the function, it can be determined by scientists. As described in the “Guidelines for the conduct of human embryonic research” by the international stem cell society; medical professionals can take an embryonic stem cell and “reprogram” it to eliminate the disease. Today 2,200 people died from heart disease (American heart association). Heart disease is only one of many diseases that can be cured by embryonic stem cell research. Religious and/or conservative groups now condemn the research, for multiple reasons. Embryonic stem cells are donated by patients of in-vitro fertilization. After a “round” of IVF, they can choose to donate, freeze, or discard their leftover embryos. Embryos contain two layers, it is the innermost layer that contains the cells used in embryonic stem cell research (Society for stem cell research). It is very important to know that, the embryos that could be used in the research are donated upon request of the patient.

The transfer of information, often shared through scientific reports and research, puts this topic in a highly international spotlight. Many supporters believe that stem cells will be able to help solve once untreatable diseases or injuries such as spinal cord injuries, skin burns, Parkinson’s disease, and some blood disorders. However, the main argument is if stem cells should be used in finding therapeutic treatments. The use of embryonic stem cells is viewed by many as a moral inconsistency; it is opposed by religious organizations and individuals believing that this research should be abandoned and existing, alternative methods be adapted.

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

The studying of stem cells is a very controversial issue that has been around since 1998 when the research of the use of embryonic stem cell treatment began. The main issues surrounding the discussion of treating people with life-altering disabilities through the use of these pluripotent cells is the ethicality of the matter and whether or not it is a savage act against a fetus. Many who oppose the use of these stem cells derived from excess embryos use the formerly stated opinion to support their argument, while those who are pro research argue that the destroying of one life could save another. The core complications that arise in studying stem cells lies in many Christian-like ethics and morals, otherwise called Christian bioethics. These are rooted in the modern day controversies arising due to advancements made in biology and medicine, mixed with religious views that argue against it. The conflicting interests of the polar opposites which are scientists and those with religious views have caused many complications along the way to discovering new treatments and cures for diseased cells. This bumpy road which has refrained scientists from making tremendous breakthroughs must smooth itself out, and the only way possible is through coming to an agreement that certain stem cell research should be practiced, such as the IPSC and adult stem cells, and others like the

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.

Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics takes a very firm stand against the use of federal funding to aid in embryonic stem cell research. This coalition was founded by 8 extensively educated medical professionals, with the majority of them having specialized backgrounds in ethics or bioethics. The basis of their stance on the argument lies with the legally recognized practice of informed consent that requires a physician to do no harm to a patient. Their argument is that embryonic stem cell research that requires the destruction of a human embryo for the greater good of medicine legally, morally, and ethically defies the informed consent practice.

“Embryonic stem cell research will prolong life, improve life, and give hope for life to millions of people,” said politician Jim Ramstad. This is a very powerful statement, and a very accurate statement. The solution to curing many diseases is just around the corner because of the advancements in embryonic stem cell research. The much needed support of society can speed up the progression of this research so lives can start to be saved. Embryonic stem cell research should be pursued because it has the potential to help or even cure many diseases, shows more promise than adult stem cells, and is morally ethical.

Imagine a world where people only talk about cancer and a desperate need for organ donors as part of a history lesson. Medical advancements have brought technology closer to making that world a reality. Recent advancements in knowledge of stem cell research has already created the ability for doctors to print a functional organ just as easily as people can print a persuasive research essay. With great medical advancements comes great controversy. The main way researchers have been studying stem cells is by harvesting undifferentiated embryonic stem cells. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research claim that stem cell harvesting damages and kills the un-born embryo; however, because of advancements in the stem cell harvesting process, embryos are not required to harvest embryonic stem cells and embryonic stem cell research can lead to great medical advancements. What is the main reason the embryonic stem cell research is controversial?

The 70's focused on research that involved fetuses in utero. The 80's shifted to research of transplantation of fetal tissue into adults with serious medical conditions such as diabetes, Parkinson's, and spinal cord injuries. The latest saga involves using cells from days-old "spare" embryos that are created in infertility treatment process and all are considered unethical and unmoral issues.

Throughout the course of history, healthcare advancements have been some of the most important events to happen to the human race. Whether it was the invention of the first stethoscope or the first vaccine for polio, these findings have helped lengthen and improve human life, as well as aid scientists in better understanding humans as a species. In recent years, embryonic stem cells have been discovered to offer a variety of benefits to many different diseases and disorders. However, despite their amazing potential, the source of these lifesaving cells have brought up the question of ethics and morals in the scientific and medical communities as well as mainstream media. Is stem cell research worth the dangers and moral controversies in

Specifically, the ethical controversies that come with using embryonic stem cells (Lo & Parham , 2009) and possible ways to get around them, will also be reviewed. Induced pluripotent stem cells in particular have the potential to replace the use of embryonic stem cells as they work in very similar ways. While there is some debate on how induced pluripotent stem cells still bring up some ethical issues (Alberta, 2009), they aren’t as heavy in comparison to that of embryonic stem cell usage. Also covered is the need for funding for stem cell research

What may researchers may possibly learn from studying how embryonic stem cells develop into spinal cord (neurons) cells, for example, could provide clues about what factors may be able to directly induce a cell to repair itself. The cells could be used to study disease, identify new drugs, or screen drugs for toxic side effects. These have a significant impact on human health without transplanting a single cell. The ethical dilemma for embryonic stem cell research poses a moral dilemma. It forces us to choose between two moral positions: 1) to prevent or alleviate suffering and/or 2) to respect the value of human life.

Research into embryonic stem cells holds a lot of promise thanks to its recognized potential to treat a wide range of conditions such as physical trauma, degenerative conditions, and genetic diseases. However, human embryonic stem cell research is a controversial issue for many as the creation of embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo. This ethical dilemma has resulted in research being held back as the debate rages on rather it’s right to use embryos in research. Despite this, embryonic stem cell research should be allowed to continue because of its potential.

There has been a controversial debate on whether or not embryonic stem cell research should be morally justified if it leads to the enhancement of treatments for acute and chronic diseases. Stem cell research is important because it leads to new potentials for regenerative therapies and treatments for diseases such as blindness, spinal cord injuries, and myocardial infarctions. In addition, stem cell research allows scientists to learn their fundamental properties and what makes them different from adult stem cells. In this essay, I will investigate the differentiation between adult stem cells (somatic stem cells) and embryonic stem cells. I will discuss the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells and the process of harvesting these embryos. Furthermore, I will examine the moral status of the human embryo based on rationality and when the embryo takes on human form. In this essay, I plan to accomplish that embryonic stem cells are scientifically more beneficial than adult stem cells because

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.