The Debate Of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Imagine a world free from disease. The idea of a utopian society has been far from reality until the research from embryonic stem cell therapy surfaced. Since former president George W. Bush banned federal funding on embryonic stem cell research in 2001 it has caused a halt in advancements and caused controversy in the public. According to an article by Beau Watts, an accredited physician; embryonic stem cells are pluripotent cells (Beau Watts). This means they have not decided what function they perform yet. Since the cells do not know the function, it can be determined by scientists. As described in the “Guidelines for the conduct of human embryonic research” by the international stem cell society; medical professionals can take an embryonic stem cell and “reprogram” it to eliminate the disease. Today 2,200 people died from heart disease (American heart association). Heart disease is only one of many diseases that can be cured by embryonic stem cell research. Religious and/or conservative groups now condemn the research, for multiple reasons. Embryonic stem cells are donated by patients of in-vitro fertilization. After a “round” of IVF, they can choose to donate, freeze, or discard their leftover embryos. Embryos contain two layers, it is the innermost layer that contains the cells used in embryonic stem cell research (Society for stem cell research). It is very important to know that, the embryos that could be used in the research are donated upon request of the patient.

The importance of ethical issues is often understated in public knowledge. Embryonic stem cell research should be of the utmost importance in the American society due to increased federal funding and the promises research in this field hold. As with many other controversies, embryonic stem cell research can be described as a dispute between religion and science due to the destruction of a viable human embryo. Depending on the status an individual grants an embryo will likely determine their stance on the issue. Next, many changes in legality and public acceptance have prompted leaders to increase funding and expand research nationally. Since taxpayers’ dollars are at work, the public should be aware of this prevalent and advancing ethical issue and be informed of its specifics. The public should also be aware of the advancements in healthcare that this research promise. Due to the changes in funding and legality, many discoveries have been made, pushing this science further. Many scientists believe embryonic stem cell research holds the key to curing many bodily injuries and deadly diseases such as spinal cord and brain injuries, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s. Also, many scientists conceive that, in the future, it will be possible to “grow” human organs from an individual’s stem cells for transplantation. The latter are only a few of the plethora of anticipated and promised treatments research in this field holds. Lastly,

Imagine a world where people only talk about cancer and a desperate need for organ donors as part of a history lesson. Medical advancements have brought technology closer to making that world a reality. Recent advancements in knowledge of stem cell research has already created the ability for doctors to print a functional organ just as easily as people can print a persuasive research essay. With great medical advancements comes great controversy. The main way researchers have been studying stem cells is by harvesting undifferentiated embryonic stem cells. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research claim that stem cell harvesting damages and kills the un-born embryo; however, because of advancements in the stem cell harvesting process, embryos are not required to harvest embryonic stem cells and embryonic stem cell research can lead to great medical advancements. What is the main reason the embryonic stem cell research is controversial?

Embryonic stem cells have the ability to grow into any type of cell that your body contains and can potentially aid in curing diseases and or repair many essential things in your body such as a kidney or a lung. This sounds like an extremely favorable advantage to medical advancements but this subject does summon some intense debates on where the stem cells come from. Embryonic meaning that it comes from the embryo veers many people’s opinion to totally protest any use of embryonic stem cells. Opposing abortions and the use of embryonic stem cells go hand in hand. Many people are just not ready for the responsibility of having a child so they take matters into their own hands and many consider having an abortion. In the end everyone takes their own decision and they fit it to what they feel is best for their lives. Many people may see an abortion as killing an innocent life but people make their own decisions and no one can stop them. Abortions are a solution to unprepared individuals that can not handle the responsibility of having a child; why not use the cells from the procedure to save a life. Children are wonderful gifts but some people are just not ready to take up the responsibility of raising that gift so they can use that gift to help another needy life.

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

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.

Some say that it should not be considered a life because they “lack physical and psychological properties that human beings have…” (Finey) When the embryo is harvested, the central nervous system has not yet developed which means the embryo has not developed into a fetus. Advocates for ESC research posit that the eggs will be discarded anyways and using them for research puts them to good use. In July 2000 Pope John Paul II declared embryonic stem cell research and cloning among the “evils of Western culture”.

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

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.

Patrick Guinan says that the ethical view of embryonic stem cell research needs to be questioned because it kills off something that has the ability to be a human being (Williams). Some people may think that but Catherine Waldby says that the embryo as just an “idea of human life” (Lauritzen) and finds no destructive behavior used in stem cell research. Even though the issue over stem cell research goes on, sixty-seven percent of Americans say they support the use of embryonic stem cell research (Hall).

Embryonic stem cells research is the most debated type of stem cell research. The moral standings of embryonic stem cell research have been debated since the research started. The side against the research claims that it is wrong to value one’s life above another and that the elimination of the most basic form of life is murder. While the side supporting the research claims that the research could bring about the cure for many types of diseases and help save the lives of millions. Embryonic stem cells are controversial because of how they are obtained and used. While the two sides argue over whether it is moral or not, they both agree that adult stem cells have potential without the moral dilemma.

“If a life is lost, we tend to feel differently about it depending on the stage of the lost life” (Embryonic Stem Cell Research: an Ethical Dilemma). A fertilized egg that has not reached or has not been implanted in the uterus does not necessarily define that it has life. To be more precise if an embryo certifies to have moral status, then we must look through the stages of development before the life's birthed. It takes six days for an embryo to reach the uterus for implantation. In after fourteen days the start of the nervous system will then develop. Following this stage would be the phase of which the body becomes premature and then birth. According to Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, believed that life did not start after three stages. He defined those stages as vegetative, animated, and intellectual. People started to believe with Aristotle that life of a human being did not begun till after these three stages. This belief concluded for many that “ an embryo did not become human until after birth, and this idea has influenced public perception and dialogue ever since” (Panno). One can argue that if it is not a fact when an embryo is considered a human then why eliminate their chances from having the potential to become one? Blastocysts, from where the embryonic stem cells are derived from, contains a high failure rate of 75 % in which it can be lost through the process of implantation by natural causes. About “more than half of fertilized eggs are lost due to natural causes” (Panno) and so it should not be agonized in the fact that early embryos are used for research. As for embryos that have reach the womb, implanted in the uterus for fertilization, fourteen days or conception, then and there applies the issue when the embryo contains of human characteristics. As blastocysts, embryos do not really have the status of anything as a part of someone’s body, when it has reached

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.

Everyday people come face to face with the choice of protecting an unborn child or treating the ill. In this case the unborn child is in the form of an embryo and the treatment comes from the usage of embryonic stem cells. This up and coming treatment has gained a lot of praise as well as speculation from the media, medical and religious officials. Deciding whether to preserve the unborn, or treat the ill, leads to the question of the morality of using embryonic stem cells. There may be controversy over the use of embryonic stem cells but despite moral convictions, this type of research provides hope and promise to researchers and patients in need. Some believe the use of adult stem cells can abolish the use of embryonic stem cells but embryonic stem cells hold the most promise, and despite disagreements, could provide the most benefits.

Contrarily, supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that such research should be pursued because the resultant treatments could have significant medical potential. In addition, leftover embryos could be given with permission and