Ethical Uses And Implications Of A Research Project

Embryonic cells should be allowed to be used because of the medical benefits they provide. They can be used to cure diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, traumatic spinal cord injury, Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy, heart disease, and even vision and hearing loss (nih.gov 2009). There is no problem using them for medical purposes and it is not immoral to use them for this reason. Embryonic cells have the potential to save lives. Therefore, the usage of embryonic cells outweighs the ethical issues.

To begin, the experimental use of animals in medical studies is unethical. These creatures are confined in isolated cages where they are deprived of necessary environmental elements. It is not uncommon that they undergo ghastly methods of experimentation; including the inhalation of toxic fumes, the burning of their skin, and the crushing of their spinal cords ("People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals"). This information sheds light on the grim realities of animal experimentation. These creatures are living, breathing beings that do not deserve to be treated as they are nothing more than lab objects. Not only are they ripped from their natural habitats, but are forced to endure an irreversible psychological trauma . To put it in perspective, imagine a six-month-old child being taken from their parents and sent to a lab to undergo scientific experiments that could ultimately result in

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

A human embryo is an organism at its first stage of human development. At this point it is controversial issue when it comes to making a decision if it is alive or not. Conscious [http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/embryo]. Until a desition can be made in the meantime scientific experimentation will still continue. As Rebecca Skloot says in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, “They put cells in culter dishes and expose them to radiation, drugs, cosmetics, viruses, household chemicals, and biological weapons, and the study their respnses” (pg 316). In the same way, Humand ebryos are also being expimented in such a way to deveoled a better understanding of diseases, cancer, and the development of modern

Only twenty years ago, embryo freezing (cryopreservation) was considered a technique that raised “disturbing,” “extremely difficult,” “incredibly complex,” and even “nightmarish” ethical issues. Currently, however, at least 41 of the 169 infertility clinics in the United States have begun to implement in vitro fertilization protocols (IVF) (Freemann et al., 1986). The number of frozen embryos in this country nearly tripled, from 289 to 824, between 1985 and 1986 (Van Steirteghem and Van Den Abbel, 1988). An estimated ten infants in the U.S. and sixty in the world were born as of 1988 after having been frozen as embryos. The government and professional advisory groups have endorsed embryo

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

Lastly, Mary, a co-worker, was interviewed in relation to embryonic harvesting and freezing. Mary’s nursing experience spans 30 years and as she states, science and technology have changed tremendously since the beginning of her career. Although she promotes the process of life, such as in the case of the Capato’s, she does state ethical concern in morality resulting when “embryonic freezing and harvesting is manipulated for the purposes of research,

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.

Across America, doctors in the field of abortion perform perfectly legal and constitutionally protected procedures everyday that result in the removal of unwanted fertilized embryos from a woman. For years these fetuses were terminated and discarded in a safe manner, with no further study or research done on the unborn child. Now, scientists have begun harvesting key cells from the fetuses before they are

An issue that has caused great legal debate is the freezing of eggs and embryos. Freezing allows savings eggs or embryos for later implantation; not all are used. However, frozen embryos and eggs generally have a lower success rate. The question arises of what happens to them if the couple decides to divorce, or one or both of them dies? These situations have been decided through court determinations. In 1987, the status of frozen embryos was brought before the Victorian courts with the case of Mr and Mrs Rios, who had died in a plane crash. The embryos from Mr and Mrs Rios had been frozen in 1981. There were many ethical and moral concerns regarding this case. Should the embryos remain frozen indefinitely, be donated, or kept for research? The Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act

What a pro-life advocate would argue the fact the embryo can hear, cry, feel fear, feel pain, and have a conscious thought. Realistically, none of these things are remotely accurate when talking about an early stage embryo. According to the Mayo Clinic, “the earliest an unborn child could conceivably hear anything would be sixteen weeks post-fertilization.” In a 2005 article published by the British Medical Journal, the article documents for the first time a fetus cries in the womb. They suggest that “fetal crying is possible at twenty weeks post-fertilization”. The biggest debate is on when embryos can feel pain. Research done by Christopher Bowen, has come to the conclusion that, “It’s my opinion that once the thalamus has been formed, at 10 weeks post-fertilization, this marks the earliest that the fetus has the capability to consciously perceive pain at least on some primal level, and can definitely feel pain by 14 weeks post-fertilization.” By the time the mother finds out she is pregnant, she has plenty of time to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy before the fetus has any conception of pain.

After being fed daily with antibiotics, the chicken are big enough to go off to the slaughter house. The only federal law in the United States, which first enacted in 1958 is the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act (HMLSA). That law was to protects farm animals and requires that the animals be rendered insensible to pain before they are slaughtered to ensure a quick, painless death” (Miller, 2010). Even though the chicken are shackled upside down and pass through an electrified water bath that is intended to immobilized them before their throat are slit, the process is so fast and ineffective that the chicken are still conscious when they are having their throat slit, their misery only end when they hit the

In fact, in addition to local and state laws and guidelines, “animal research is regulated by the Federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1966. These regulations stipulate minimum housing standards for research animals as well as regular inspections by veterinarians. All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Humane treatment is enforced by each facility's IACUC, and most major research institutions' programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). All institutions receiving funding from the US Public Health Service (PHS) must comply with the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.”

Commercialization of the IVF industry has increased the use of in vitro-produced embryos in the cattle industry. However, the efficiency of producing in vitro embryos is low, so in vivo-produced embryos remain superior. This review focuses on the issues with in vitro-produced embryos. Normal cell communication and transcription, as well as morphology appear disrupted when placed in culture media. Serum appears to cause changes to embryos. Embryo metabolism is altered when cultured, as nutrient uptake increases and growth accelerates, resulting in increased birth weight in calves. Changes in embryo physiology can lead to early embryonic death, or can negatively impact health later in life. Although improvements can be made to in vitro