Ethical Issues Concerning Stem Cell Research

Stem cells are cells that have the potential to develop into different types of cells in the body. Stem cells also act as a repair system for many tissues in the body by dividing repeatedly to replenish other cells within a person (National Institutes of Health). Stem cell research seeks to further the advancement of the use of stem cells as well as to find an ethical way to study them. In November 1998, researchers found a way to isolate and culture human embryonic stem cells, (Bevington 2005). The ethics of stem cell research has been debated over the years and some people fully support the use of stem cells, whereas others are completely against the use of stem cells. This has been an ongoing battle for scientists over the span of two decades prior to the 1998 finding.

A stem cell can be described as the primary building block of the human body and have become important because of its ability to develop into a different cell type. Due to this ability to develop into different cell types, scientists have continued to build up ways to use stem cells to renew or repair damaged tissues or organs. As a result of such efforts, it's expected that stem cell research can contribute to the discovery of new therapies for various medical conditions like diabetes, heart disease, and Alzheimer's disease. However, it's difficult to estimate the duration of time that it could take in order for stem cell research to accomplish these measures. Regardless of these attempts, stem cell research has continued to generate huge debates and controversies across the world since it emerged. These controversies and debates have hugely affected stem cell research policies and contributed to various legal issues.

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

When talking about ethics, we have theoretical ethics and applied ethics. Those these two are different they, are also connected. Theoretical ethics can be defined as the theoretical study of the main concepts and methods of ethics(Ward). This is, basically, studying the ethical language, the concepts, beliefs, and the reasoning of certain ethical theories. Applied ethics are defined as the application and evaluation of the principles that guide practice in particular domains. Applied ethics concerns the issues and problems specific to the field in question(Ward). This is taking ethical theories and applying them to everyday issues, whether private or professional. While they are different, since one looks at understanding ethical principles and the other takes a different approach by applying those principles, they are similar because they really need to go hand in hand to reach the right goal. In order to figure out which ethical theory works, you would need to learn more about it and then look at applying it. Now, we will take a look at rights based ethics and stem cell research.

“I truly believe that stem cell research is going to allow our children to look at Alzheimer’s and diabetes and other major diseases the way we look at polio today, which is a preventable disease” (Solomon). Susan Solomon has founded the New York Stem Cell Foundation and has been seen as the hero for stem cell scientists around the world. Over the past couple years, stem cell research has been at its high; scientists all over the world are using these cells to try to find new ways to cure life threatening diseases. Some have used stem cells to treat patients who have been brain dead recently and these cells made the dead portion of the brain start functioning again. Also, some scientists and doctors have

The subject in this article is about the federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. The argument is about Research on human embryonic stem cells and the development of therapies for chronic and debilitating diseases. The question is should the federal government of the United States provide funding for the stem cell research? The thesis of the argument is “others worry that even if research on embryos is not wrong in itself, it will open the way to a slippery slope of dehumanizing practices, such as embryo farms, cloned babies, the use of fetuses for spare parts, and the commoditization of human life.”

In recent years, stem cell research has become a prominent way of treating: heart disease, cancer, HIV/AIDS, spinal problems, and much more ; moreover, in recent years as Stem cell research became more popular, it has sparked controversy over the religion aspect of stem cell research. Stem cell research begins with culturing an embryonic cell and then injecting the stem cell into the area of concern(Robertson). Pluripotent stem cells are gathered and used to treat the areas, pluripotent stem cells are those that are in the earliest stages of development ; in addition, at this stage, cells can learn the jobs and take shape of cells that did the job once before (Robertson).

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

Currently, the use of research is to understand how the body develops from a fertilized egg and investigating how to produce more cells (Cox 1). However, there are limitations because of the uncertainty of how to fully control differentiation of these type of cells (Cox 1). Although they have solely been used for these specific expenditures, the problem still lies with “murdering” human lives. The people who support the embryonic stem cell research claim that the week-old blastocysts are only clusters of cells; therefore, they do not constitute as human beings (Rebecca 2). This is where they are wrong. They believe that because these cells, embryonic stem cells, are not “human”, they should not have the same human rights granted to the more advanced stages of cell growth. This is unjust because once the fetus starts to develop in the mother’s womb, it is a child with a life. The implementation of the embryo into the uterus wall around six days after fertilization counts as having life (Hug 1). Overall, embryos possess the same rights and are thus entitled to the same protections as are afforded to other human beings and in 2006, President Bush had ordered the limited funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells because of its violation of human rights (“Euro Stem Cell” 2). This demonstrates the seriousness of embryos having

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?

Those who are against embryonic stem cell research commonly bring up the point of the embryo being unconscious, so it should not be killed because of its inability of awareness. Those who do not support the research compare the state of being unconscious to being asleep. While a person sleeps, it would be unacceptable to do any harm to them, so people expect the same treatment to go to the unformed human as well. Though a fully developed human and a newly formed blastocyte are far from similar, many try to argue that by those enforcing the rights of humans while they are unconscious, then we should “exercise these capacities when they eventually become fully developed humans”(Key). The argument against this problem is that embryos will never gain consciousness, but humans will eventually regain it once they wake up. The difference is that a embryo never had the chance to become conscious.

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.

As an ethicist, it is my utmost duty to provide a comprehensible standpoint that will serve to protect the life of these embryos and their natural and legal rights. In regards, to these embryos they have the potential to become a person thus granting it vital. The process involving the development of life arises from a fertilized egg and this is an ongoing process. An embryo is a human being within the embryonic stage, similarly as, the infant is a human being within the infant stage. Although, it appears to be absent of displaying human-like characteristics, it is still developing and will display these characteristics in due time. Since, embryos are capable of being humans they should be given the respect and dignity of a person (2017, Ethical

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.

To add opposing force, some ethicists believe that the human embryo is the most vulnerable of human beings and that destruction of it should be forbidden. A Lutheran bioethicist proclaims, "the human embryo is the weakest and least advantaged of our fellow human beings," and citing Karl Barth adds, "and no community is `really strong if it will not carry its...weakest members' " (Peters and Bennett 187). There are those who hold a parallel yet contradictory position when it comes to embryonic cells. They do not recognize the