Stem Cell Research Memo

The transfer of information, often shared through scientific reports and research, puts this topic in a highly international spotlight. Many supporters believe that stem cells will be able to help solve once untreatable diseases or injuries such as spinal cord injuries, skin burns, Parkinson’s disease, and some blood disorders. However, the main argument is if stem cells should be used in finding therapeutic treatments. The use of embryonic stem cells is viewed by many as a moral inconsistency; it is opposed by religious organizations and individuals believing that this research should be abandoned and existing, alternative methods be adapted.

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.

The controversy due to embryonic stem cells is quite debatable. Both sides present many strong reasons that prove their point, but it is still, frankly, nearly impossible to take a stand from an unbiased view. "This is the first study showing that embryonic stem cells can be used for brain and spinal cord repair in an animal model of a human neurological disease," said researcher Oliver BrŸstle (a neuropathologist at the University of Bonn in Germany) referring to the study done on rats (CNN). Just like Oliver BrŸstle many scientists around the world agree that embryonic stem cell show much welcomed hope of cure of spinal and brain repair. In addition to healing spinal and brain injuries, the embryonic stem cells can also treat diabetes, a disease which 54%

Stem cells are basically the building blocks of life. Some type of these cells can be engineered into any type of cell in the human body. There are three types of stem cells currently. Adult or somatic stem “cells can generate replacements for bone and muscle cells that are lost through injury, disease or normal wear and tear.” Another type of stem cells are embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells “are “starter cells” that can be coaxed into becoming any of the specialized cells of the body, meaning they are “pluripotent.” The final type of stem cells are induced-pluripotent stem cells. Induced pluripotent stem cells “are adult stem cells that have been genetically altered to behave like embryonic stem cells”(National Institute of Health). Due to the advancement in medical technology scientists and doctors alike are now able to use stem cells for a variety of reasons like research and also in patient care. The benefits of this research can lead to the cure of diseases like diabetes, some cancers, and even neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s Disease and spinal cord injuries. The controversy behind stem cells lie from where these stem cells come from. The source of stem cells are plentiful. Some stem cells can come from human embryos that are a few days old. Stem cells can also be engineered in a laboratory setting using the cells from human embryos. Also there are certain stem cells that can be harvested from adults and

"Human beings are not disposable biological material." (Saunders 1). You get where I’m going with this, right? William Saunders, a catholic Priest, debates his viewpoint on Stem Cell Research, calling it unethical, and those who do it, killers. Saunders argues

A mother has developed Alzheimer’s, preventing her from having a normal relationship with her family. A newly born baby girl has a spinal cord issue, making for many years of rehabilitation ahead her. A diabetic wife struggles to take care of her household duties because of constantly having to monitor her blood sugar and deal with insulin shots. With the development of stem cell research, and the more controversial embryonic stem cell research, every one of these instances could not only be cured, but prevented, within the next half century. In fact, diseases that are predicted to be treated by means of stem cell research are figured to now plague the likes of 100 million Americans. Looking at the arguments dealing with stem cell

The paramount reason embryonic stem cell research should be funded by the government is that it could lead to cures to some of our world’s most devastating diseases. According to Mayo Clinic, “People who might benefit from stem cell therapies include those with spinal cord injuries, type 1 diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, stroke,

In the contemporary world of today, the issue of embryonic stem cell research is one of this controversial significant topic regarding which there is neither fair/moral agreement nor understandable, wide-ranging laws. As far as the ethical debate is concerned, it focuses on the verifiable piece of information that stem cell research consists of destroying the very early embryos of the human beings. The federal government has restricted the financial support for stem cell research to research that makes use of the stem cells obtained from a small amount of stem cell "lines" (Shapiro, 2006).

Abstract: Religion has played a key part in the battle for embryonic rights. Pope John Paul II has spoken out against stem cell research; however, Buddhist leaders and the Episcopal Church have taken a stand for stem cell research. Different religions have different opinions about stem cell research. However the controversy can never really be solved because it is so hard to define the line of morality when talking about stem cells and embryos.

Millions of people die every year from diseases and accidents; the nightly news is filled with reports about the devastating effects of cancer, horrific accidents, and disasters that leave people disfigured or paralyzed. Embryonic stem cell research is a part of biomedical science and has the potential to ease the suffering of sick people by curing diseases and defects, creating organs and tissue for patients needing transplants or skin grafts, regenerating axons in spinal cord injuries, and creating new treatments, drugs, and immunizations. However, America’s government does not support this research to an extent that would make a difference in medicine; only a few stem cell lines are authorized, and federal funding is minimal. The

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?

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.

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

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 opponents of embryonic stem cells stick to the belief that destroying one human’s life to save and cure others is not worth it because it makes you wonder, where will the line be drawn? Can the killing and experimentation of homeless people, for example, be justified by the possibility of saving a few Alzheimer’s patients’ lives? Will the world allow the destruction of the elderly just to save the younger generation? The opponents of embryonic stem cells realize that if the world begins using embryonic stem cells to make everyone healthier, than there is no telling what the world is willing to sacrifice in order for them to survive and if the world does go down that path, who gets to decide who deserves to live or die? (“Using Embryos is Immoral”). The destructive view that the world has towards embryonic stem cells is made evident not only by the ongoing debate about whether or not embryonic stem cells should be used but also by the restriction placed on embryonic