Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Essay

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.

Are embryonic stem cells the cure to many of the human body’s ailments, including defective organs and crippling diseases, or is their use a blatant disregard of human rights and the value of life?  Thanks to the rapid advancements in this field, the potential benefits of stem cells are slowly becoming reality.  However, embryonic stem cell research is an extremely divisive topic in the United States thanks to the ethical issues surrounding terminating embryos to harvest the stem cells.  In response to this debate, Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker amendment in 1995 to prohibit federal funding of research that involved the destruction of embryos.  President Bush affirmed this decision, but more recently President Obama lifted many of

The President’s Council on Bioethics published “Monitoring Stem Cell Research” in 2004. This report was written in response to President Bush’s comments regarding research of human stem cells on August 9, 2001. President Bush announced that he was going to make federal funding available for research that involved existing lines of stem cells that came from embryos. He is the first president to provide any type of financial support for the research of human stem cells. A Council was created with people who are educated in the field of stem cells to help monitor the research and to recommend guidelines and consider the ethical consequences that this research could create. This report is an “update” given

In our government today Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President are all faced with making tough decisions for our country. These decisions are not only decided based off the constitution but the ideological shift as generations go on. Possibly one of the most controversial landmark decisions the government is currently being challenged with is the affair of abortion. In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States was presented the case of Roe v Wade. The ruling decided a person has the right to privacy protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. This gave women the right to decide to have an abortion, but only under regulations from the state. As a result of this case, scientific research was conducted on stem cells starting in 1978 when a scientist discovered stem cells in human cord blood. From 1981 to 1991 scientist tested stem cells in mice, hamsters, and later in primates. 1998 marked an important discovery of pluripotent stem cells in an embryo, which is where the problem lies between the morals and ethics of citizens and the politicians’ jobs to decide for the people what is right for stem cell research.

House and Senate in 1996, Harriet Rabb (a lawyer at the Department of Health and Human Services) quickly found a loophole in regards to the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. Ms. Rabb found that the amendment “provided a definition for embryos, but [she] reasoned that human stem cell lines did not fall under this definition, so experimentation with the lines derived using private funds could receive federal funding” (Kearl 1). With this new legal interpretation put forth in 1998 the then Clinton administration sought to re-approach the guidelines for federal funding for embryonic research. Also, by this point advances in privately funded research had resulted in it no longer being inevitable that embryos would be destructed in harvesting human embryonic

The Department of Health and Human Services maintained a moratorium on federal funding for research on embryos and fetuses, as well as in vitro fertilization, until President Clinton issued an executive order lifting it in 1993 (Scott p.153). However, Congress banned federal funding for human embryo research by adding legislation known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment to every appropriations bill for the National Institutes of Health since 1995, making it impossible for the President to overturn the ban without also cutting the cash flow to the NIH (Scott p.154). This restriction remains in place today. On August 9, 2001, President Bush “clarifies which human embryonic stem cells can be used under federal funding rules” by stating that any lines derived from excess IVF blastocysts before his announcement are eligible for grants (Hopkins 2005). Then in 2009, President Obama lifted the 'made-before ' restriction for stem cell lines but maintained the ban on creation and destruction of embryos for research purposes (Madison.com 2009).

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.

Embryonic stem cell research has been a highly controversial topic for several years. The question of how far science is supposed to push human life has many sides, each warring against each other. In 2010, in the Sherley v. Sebelius case, allowing research involving human embryonic cells was brought into question once again, after Presidents Bush and Obama had dealt with the matter in previous years. At the end of the case in April of 2011, The District Court of Appeals decided to overturn the preliminary injunction, which actually had allowed federal funding the research experimenting with human embryos to continue. While this case was closed, the topic still is not. Stem cell research as a whole faces judgement from many who think it is

For Embryonic Stem Cell research, the issue of the destruction of a human embryo fell to the Pro-Life, Pro-Choice issue (Monitoring 487). In addition to the controversy, the current leaders of the United States (at the time) stepped in with legislature either allowing or halting the federal funding opportunities for Embryonic Stem Cells. From executive orders, to Supreme Court cases, the stem cells had formed a new argument and dinner table conversation for many individuals of the United States (White). Through many forms of language that spoke volumes for the research advocated for one side or the other, federal funding for or against. The federal funding issue is arguably the only distinct roadblock for the research, as it is the only form of legislature in place for the research (Tauer 927). From the 1980s when the issue grew from fertilization assistant for an everyday family to the 2000s when speeches, party politics, and medical reform became an essential part of the Embryonic Stem Cells ability to do what they do best, cure. Through the new forms of language for this topic from executive orders to speeches and court cases, the topic was changing, without the growth in

This year, eight million innocent lives will be lost due to cancer. (cdc.gov) Eight million lives. That is equivalent to the entire population of New York City being eradicated because of one ravaging disease. However, there is a way to prevent these deaths, and this way is embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research has the ability to not only find cures to some of our nation’s most appalling illnesses, but it also involves beneficial utilization of the hundreds of thousands of unused embryos that die each year at fertility centers. For these reasons, it is essential that embryonic stem cell research be funded by the U.S. government.

President Bush was the first president that approved stem cell research of any kind. But he did not clearly outline what the policy was, or what his stance on it was. He drew heat from both stem cell supporters and detractors. He recounts how the doctors that were doing the research felt that Bush did not do enough to help them, and the people who are against stem cell research felt as though he did far too much to help. Bush also states how John Kerry used his unclear stance on stem cells as a means of calling Bush “anti-science”. This is a difficult topic to please everyone with, but Bush did not do the best job that he

On August 9, 2001 President Bush announced that he would allow limited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research under certain conditions. Under Bush's new ruling only the 64 stem cell lines that were already in place before August 9 were to be funded. He said that the government would not fund further destruction of embryos to create more lines. Also stem cells could not be obtained from embryos created for that purpose or from the left over embryos from in-vitro fertilization. However, private sectors would be allowed to continue producing new lines through the destruction of embryos.

Researches are continuously looking for ways to cure and treat all kinds of diseases, so why are there limits being put on the kinds of treatments that can be used to treat or cure a disease? Embryonic Stem Cells can be used to treat many different diseases, but some people have their opinion that using these stem cells in medicine is unethical because they are coming from a human embryo. There are countries that have banned the use of embryonic stem cells in medicine, and in America there are people arguing that it should be banned here. But what about all of the lives these stem cells are saving, what if research continues and these embryonic stem cells end up being a cure to a disease? With this in mind, human embryonic stem cells

Scientists and researchers believe that Human Embryonic Stem Cells hold potential cures for numerous diseases in today's society, including multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, Hodgkin's disease, hundreds of immune system and genetic disorders, spinal cord injuries, heart disease and just about every type of cancer. In today's world there's over a million Americans who suffer from deadly diseases, not only adults but innocent children that deserve to live a healthy life. These deadly diseases can be cured or treated in a more effective way than they are treated now with the help of the human embryonic stem cells. According to the Poll on "American views on stem cell research in the wake of the death of Ronald Reagan" which was prepared for results of America, shows that a sum of 73% highly supports and somewhat support this controversial process (Results of America, 2004). Even though this topic has brought continuous political attacks and very limited funding, Human Embryonic Stem cell research has made considerable contribution to the battle against disabilities and incurable diseases. A great example of success by using human embryonic stem cells was made by Dr. Hans Keirstead in the Roman Laboratory at UC Irvine; he restored myelin insulation around damaged nerves, returning motion to partially paralyzed rats. (Journal of Neuroscience, 2005) .

The controversial topic of stem cell research has been a controversial topic for a very long time. In 2001, George Bush severely restricted government-funded stem cell research. In 2009, Barack Obama allowed it. The order says that National Institutes of health can produce new procedures and policies in which the money can be used. On August 23, 2010, a federal judge issued an order blocking all research of stem-cells, including that allowed even when Bush was president. On July 27, 2011, Royce Lamberth, Chief judge of the federal court in Washington, D.C., said that stem cells could be used for life-threatening diseases. The Court of Appeals agreed with this, and the case was brought to a close (Stem cell policy).