Stem Cell Reasearch

Most people are against Embryonic Stem Cell research mainly because they consider it unethical to use aborted fetuses for research. The two main issues concerning the research are the ethics (Cons) and the benefits (Pros). In any scientific case, ethics must always be considered. But the use of fetuses is something that is of the utmost importance. The costs are generally measured based off of people’s feelings, morals, and knowledge about the subject up for debate. The use of aborted fetuses for stem cell research may have many positive outcomes that can come of it, but many negative outcomes as well; If using aborted fetuses for research can, in the near future, save lives, then it is a research that should be supported, even though some

Human embryonic stem cell research has been a hot debate for many years and with good reason. Many people believe that by performing this type of research we are violating the right to human life. In his article, Jim Eckman makes a compelling argument, but fails to really make any convincing arguments about why the negatives outweigh the medical benefits that stem cell research possesses and so for that I disagree with him.

This proposal is immoral because it violates a central tenet of all civilized codes on human experimentation beginning with the Nuremberg Code: It approves doing deadly harm to a member of the human species solely for the sake of potential benefit to others. 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.

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?

Research should continue because embryonic stem cells possibly hold the key to preventing a myriad of diseases. If something can be cured and prevented then don’t scientist have an obligation to do? So long as a scientist is in accordance with the guidelines established by NIH there should be no problem with further research until we know all that we can about embryonic stem

Imagine living in a world without cancer, Parkinson 's, or even diabetes. While everyone may wish this is true, people are against a way that researchers can make this possible, which would be by the use of stem cells. There is major controversy on whether or not stem cell research should be allowed, especially when it comes to embryonic stem cell research. Although many consider it to be killing a potential life form, embryonic stem cell research may eventually be acceptable to use because there is consent and a lengthy process to make sure the donor understands what their embryonic stem cells will be used for. That may be viewed as a much better

For decades, researchers’ use of stem cells has caused a controversy and the consideration of the ethics of research involving the development, usage, and destruction of human embryos. Most commonly, this controversy focuses on embryonic stem cells. Not all stem cell research involves the creation, usage and destruction of human embryos. For example, adult stem cells, amniotic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells do not involve creating, using or destroying human embryos and thus are minimally, if at all, controversial. Many less controversial sources of acquiring stem cells include using cells from the umbilical cord, breast milk, and bone marrow. (Brunt, 2012) In 1998, scientists discovered how to extract stem cells from human embryos. This discovery led to moral ethics questions concerning research involving embryo cells, such as what restrictions should be made on studies using these types of cells? At what point does one consider life to begin? Is it just to destroy an embryo cell if it has the potential to cure countless numbers of patients? Political leaders are debating how to regulate and fund research studies that involve the techniques used to remove the embryo cells. No clear consensus has emerged. Other recent discoveries may extinguish the need for embryonic stem cells. With this in mind, we will discover both sides of the issue from a pros and cons point of view. Stem cell research has expanded at an exponential rate, but its therapeutic

Embryonic stem cell research is widely controversial in the scientific world. Issues on the ethics of Embryonic Stem (ES) cell research have created pandemonium in our society. The different views on this subject are well researched and supportive. The facts presented have the capability to support or possibly change the public’s perspective. This case study is based on facts and concerns that much of the research done on embryonic stem cells is derived from human embryos. This case study will provide others with a more in depth view of both sides of this great debate.

Despite many adversaries’ claims that the ways to obtain stem cells are immoral, the benefits outweigh the problems, for stem cell treatment could improve thousands of lives, and if the embryos don’t go towards helping research, they will be incinerated. The blastocyst is not created for scientific research, it is donated by its “mother and father” willingly. Furthermore, the embryo still is yet to differentiate, resulting in the embryo being incapable of feeling pain. Although the research does take the embryo’s life, the embryo wouldn’t have become a human, and if used for science, it can help scientists discover how to help hundreds of people. Stem cells can change the lives of people who have diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, lung disease, and many more medical complications; therefore, embryonic stem cell research should be

Stem cells are defined as “mother cells that have the potential to become any new type of cell in the body” (Cashin-Garbutt). It sounds like a tool that can be used to help another’s health, yet it is a hot issue in the modern science world. The stem cells come from spare embryo’s, existing cell lines, and therapeutic cells (EuroStemCell). Therapeutic cloning stem cells aren’t even used in patients yet and existing cell lines are well accepted. There are adult stem cells, and embryotic stem cells. The controversy surrounded by the topic comes with the embryotic stem cells. Embryo stem cells are moral, they help those with life-taking diseases, and often times there are extra embryos that are used.

The stem cell controversy has been going on for many years. The two basic controversies surrounding stem cell research is whether or not it is morally justifiable, and if stem cells will ever live up to the medical promises. Most of these controversies concern embryonic stem cells more than any other stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are unspecialized, but have the ability to divide and make specialized cells like muscles, nerves, and skin cells. These cells are found in the early stage of human development. When the human egg is fertilized by sperm and becomes a blastocyst, which is basically a cluster of stem cells, the harvesting for embryonic stem cells begins. In order to harvest the stem cells scientists basically destroy the blastocyst. The embryonic stem cell is an efficient treatment for a variety of diseases that affect many human beings. Those diseases include Parkinson’s, muscular dystrophy, heart diseases, diabetes, vision and hearing loss, or even spinal cord injury.

Stem cell therapy has been an issue for debate as long as I can remember. The potential cure for any number of diseases is exciting and gives us reason to be thankful for the potential for healing in the people that we love. There is a real potential for stem cell therapy to be the future when it comes to health and humanity. However, the story doesn't end without controversy. Since the beginning of this particular type of research, groups vehemently debated its ethical outcome. On one hand, there is a real possibility to save lives or help people who are hurting. On the other hand, when stem cells are gathered from an embryo, that embryo is destroyed. Those who believe human life begins at conception, believe that this process is killing a human person. Proponents of Embryonic stem cell research say that the embryos that were used to extract stem cells were either a byproduct of abortion or gathered from the aftermath of the birth of a living child.

Even though scientist have other promising ways of researching the same goals, using only adult stem cells for research instead, many abortion opponents oppose both techniques, some supporters say harvesting potentially life saving cells from embryos that otherwise would be destroyed is justified. But some supporters of the research argue against the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of harvesting cells and then destroying them. The political and religion debates are endless on whether further research should be done, but I believe it is necessary to continue the research of stem cells to treat and cure diseases. In my opinion stem cells are a valuable research tool and might, in the future, be used to treat a wide range of diseases. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to abnormal cell division and differentiation. Therefor a better understanding of the genetic and molecular controls of these processes may yield information about how such diseases arise and suggest new strategies for therapy. Stem cell research offers patients and their family hope of a

Stem Cell Research is the future of scientific research, but it needs to be clarified more with the masses. Many think that Stem Cell Research is unethical and immoral. People also believe that Stem Cell Research is only done on embryos. Stem Cell Research could bring forth a world with fewer worries of disease and disablement.

My opinion on this controversy is positive because I believe that there is more good being done than harm. My positive reasoning is due to when the stem cells are obtained from human embryos and fetuses, there is a potential to treat or cure diseases. On the other hand, I believe in having some guidelines and/or rules when dealing with this controversy such as the guidelines already developed and made laws.