Essay on Ethical Theories of Embryonic Stem Cells

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.

      Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right      to life.' A piece of protoplasm has no rights--and no life in the human      sense of the term. An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a      potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until      it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the      unborn) body? (Ayn Rand, http://www.abortionisprolife.com/)

Embryonic stem cell research is important for further development in the medical field. It strongly supports the idea that every life has value, an idea known as human dignity. Human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, and thus, are all equal. The idea of radical equality before God leads us to think no less of someone regardless of their physical appearance, religious beliefs, cultural background, or anything else. It is through virtues such as charity, mercy, and justice that our human dignity is preserved. By living through these virtues and realizing how to effectively instill them within us, we are able to live a virtuous life. This paper argues that although issues involving embryonic stem cell research are controversial, research in this area is typically permissible for further development in the medical field when looking to preserve human dignity. In order to defend this thesis, this paper will be structured into three sections as followed: the description of embryonic stem cell research, the development of a moral lens, and the moral argument and analysis of this case.

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

Specifically, this pertains to stem cell research. In keeping with the principle of utilitarianism it is morally correct to treat embryo with a higher purpose than any other cells. Embryos have great potential in treating the world’s illnesses that other cells do not so to be moral we must do what is best for the most people. In keeping respect for embryos we could choose only the most beneficial research to be approved for their use thus being as utilitarian as possible. In this way embryos lie somewhere in between the moral value of humans and other bodily tissues. If embryos did not have the medical potential they do, then I would say they only deserve the respect other bodily tissue deserves. Embryos have no consciousness or sentiment like other tissue but, have

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

Scientists have generally agreed that stem cells are vital to the science and medical field for they may be the solution to treat and even cure several serious medical conditions. However, not all the types of the stem cell research is widely accepted. For instance, the Embryonic Stem Cell Research, which in recent years has been largely debated in the United States. This is due to the two major arguments following this research. One, embryonic stem cell research is necessary to unravel the possibility of improving human life. Two, embryonic stem cell research involves the abortion of potential human life. It is a debate whether the life of an individual suffering from a fatal illness or injury is more priceless, or the life of a human at one

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.

Speaking of life, much debate occurred over whether or not an embryo should be considered a human. Patrick Lee, and Robert P. George, two of these individuals, Lee, a professor, and George, a politician, have often collaborated on many articles about stem cell research, and have gone on record by agreeing that embryos are in fact human from conception(33-41). The two argue that, from conception, an embryo immediately strives toward purposeful development. They then go into the science behind this claim. For our purposes, we won’t go into the science behind said development, because there is too much information

As technology advances, the use of embryonic stem cell research has also expanded. Stem cells have shown promise in personalized medicine as they are undifferentiated and easily conform with the surrounding cells. There are two areas of research that stem cells are showing massive potential, cell regeneration and organ transplantation. It is thought that stem cells have the capability to “model genetic disorders in a reliable fashion such that no other method allows. It seems likely that we could use stem cells to model cells with genetic disorders and figure out how to mute certain genes, thus eliminating or drastically reducing the effects of the disease,” (1). Although embryonic stem cells (ESC) are showing great potential towards medical advancements, there are many people who are opposed to the idea of using these cells due to the aggressive nature in which we extract ESC.

Embryonic stem cells, according to the National Institute of Health, are cells obtained from embryos that are prepared from fertilized eggs which have been collected through the in vitro technique; in specialized clinics. Scientists use the stem cell research to have a better idea about the evolution, aging, and disease. Thus, they keep track of the stem cells progress across the lifetime; this tracking process can help scientists to figure out the genetic mutations of malfunctioned cells in many diseases. However, the stem cell research is controversial among the society. There is a part of the society that believes that the government should fund the stem cell research not only for the benefits it adds to scientific fields but also for its contribution toward the wellbeing of humankind such as the prevention and treatment of a lot of diseases, as well as making new and efficient drugs. On the other hand, opponents argue that the embryonic stem cells should be considered as human lives; they deserve the same respect and protection everyone else has. Therefore, the money of the taxpayers should not fund and promote an immorality.

Lee and George support their argument by providing three important facts that differentiate a human embryo is, in fact, a human being. First, they say that sex cells and somatic cells are part of a larger organism while the human embryo is a complete or whole organism, though immature (14). Secondly, they say that the embryo is human and has all the characteristics of a human being but the sex and somatic cells are genetically and functionally different because they cannot develop

The ethical issues of stem cell research are closely tied to their social issues. Embryonic stem cell research causes many social dilemmas and raises the long-debated question of when life conception starts. To many, life conception starts immediately after fertilization, supporting the idea that the embryo is the equivalent of a human life. As a result, pro-life supporters and religious groups view ESC research as the equivalent of murder. On the contrary, some do not believe that embryos possess the same moral status as a living person. Supporters also argue that the blastula, where ESCs are derived from, are already commonly created and destroyed by fertility clinics. Therefore, instead of destroying surplus blastula, they could be put into better use in ESC labs, which could lead to more treatments. While ESCs hold a tremendous potential for advancements in human health, people still wonder if the benefits outweigh the costs. People have the duty of respecting human life, however to many, ESC research violates this principle, since it results in the destruction of a human embryo. Meanwhile, people also feel the moral responsibility of helping

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