The Ethics And Morality Of Stem Cell Research

Stem cells are cells that have the potential to develop into different types of cells in the body. Stem cells also act as a repair system for many tissues in the body by dividing repeatedly to replenish other cells within a person (National Institutes of Health). Stem cell research seeks to further the advancement of the use of stem cells as well as to find an ethical way to study them. In November 1998, researchers found a way to isolate and culture human embryonic stem cells, (Bevington 2005). The ethics of stem cell research has been debated over the years and some people fully support the use of stem cells, whereas others are completely against the use of stem cells. This has been an ongoing battle for scientists over the span of two decades prior to the 1998 finding.

2. The most effective argument in his essay is when he says “Millions are suffering. This is precisely the argument that research-cloning advocates are deploying today to allow them to break the moral barrier of creating.” In this argument he points out how the research advocates can't be trusted because a year ago, they assured they only wanted to do stem cell research on discarded embryos. He also points out that the research advocates create new excuses in order to keep breaking the moral barrier. In addition, they promised to only grow human clones only to the blastocyst stage. In other words, they would not create a human embryo in the laboratory. Today, they are campaigning hard to permit research for the creation of human embryos. This shows us that the research advocates are not keeping their promise because they are campaigning in order to create human embryos. The author's

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.

By definition, discovery implies uncertainty, but progress cannot exist without either. They are codependent upon each other. Whether the use of embryonic stem cells is truly the destruction of human life and whether the potential of human life is equal to the possible realization of that potential is also codependent. Neither of these questions can be answered without simultaneously answering the other. Arguments from both sides of this issue are extremely valid, which is why it has become such a difficult question for anyone with consideration of the opinions of others to answer. That being said, a rational stance on this issue must incorporate views from both sides, as well as logic to keep from becoming indifferent. A moderate policy should be adopted by the United States, one that allows the funding of research on spare embryos from IVF as opposed to their disposal, and one that allows for the use of Nuclear Transfer for the purpose of therapeutic cloning as long as the eggs are obtained from willing donors, though a policy that does not permit the production of human embryos strictly for research besides in the context of therapeutic cloning. This policy can be justified through the logic of Kantian Ethics, John Harris’s, “Stem Cells, Sex, and Procreation,” John P. Lizza’s, “Potentiality and Human Embryos,” and a public opinion expressed by Ian Wilmut.

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

Other scientists supporting embryonic stem cell research say that the 64 lines the President has allowed funding for will soon need to be replaced because of age. Before any more federal funding is allowed for embryonic stem cell (ESC) research, it is critical that the government examines the concerns that the anti-abortionists have then determine if it is morally acceptable to further fund ESC research.

In the article “Morally Unserious in the Extreme” by Charles Krauthammer, explains the opinions of Bush’s and Obama’s idea towards the stem cell research. Bush restricts the funding of the embryonic stem cell research and he explains the balance of ethical and scientific goods. Krauthammer favors Bush’s ideas, but to permit the use of spare fertility clinic embryos. He opposes the human experimentation and warns an outbreak of power might occur. Obama chooses to make a choice of ethics over science without fully understanding the capability of science. Krauthammer believes that Obama does not see the responsibility of furthering the research. Obama believes in the scientists rather than depending on his intelligence. In the end of the article,

Abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration are all hot button topics currently being faced by Americans. As ardently as each side defends their stance on a controversial issue, an opposing side fights with equal diligence for the beliefs they feel should be valued by our nation. Perhaps nowhere is this battle more heated than in the fight over stem cell research. While supporters of this new field of science tout it’s potential to cure everything from blindness to paralysis, those against stem cell science liken the procedures used by scientists to murder. It is my intention to bring to light the positive benefits of stem cell research as well as counter the claims used by many Pro-life groups who believe the scientists driving this

“The misleading debate on stem cell research” written by Mona Charen is a cautionary tale of the escalating manner in which life will be dehumanized should society begin to support this research with federal funding. Stem cell research crosses a moral line that society should be reluctant to cross even for the best intentions (Charen). Stem cell research has been picketed by pro-lifers since the first whispers of its use. The results of stem cell research are rarely attacked since we really don’t know the fruits of such research without funding and supporting it. In the United States, stem cell research remains legal, however it is not funded by the government. Germany, Italy, Portugal, Luxembourg, and Austria all have a ban on it, begging the question to be asked “What do they know that we don’t?” (Charen). Going a step further we are warned that scientists have been frustrated by their inability to ascertain certain results, speculating things will go a step further. What is to stop the research from moving forward to allowing an embryo to reach a later stage of development (Charen)? It is easy to shame society into shying from the idea of growing embryos for spare body parts to be dismantled by mad scientists, and yet that is not where the argument currently lies. Instead, scientists use embryos that will be discarded and whom the owner has agreed to their donation to science. It is wrong to take a scientific matter and wrap it in a morality issue.

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.

We have an amazing items in our body called stem cells. Stem cells are cells that have the ability to transform into any type of tissue cell in the human body. After a sperm fertilizes an egg, the cell they form is known as a zygote or a totipotent cell. This cell goes through numerous mitotic divisions and after about four days forms a blastocyst. This blastocyst has an outer layer and an inner layer, part of which is hollow. The outer layer grows to form what will become the placenta. The cells contained in the inner layer are known as pluripotent cells. They are what the term stem cell generally refers to.

More than one ethical position on stem cell research could be called "religious"; and as a Christian, could ethically support stem cell research because of its potential for relieving human suffering and enhancing human health and well-being. There is more than one way to be moral, more than one way to translate one's faith commitments into public policy. (185)

Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Research and Therapy written by Nancy King and Jacob Perrin was very different to most sources I have found, for the reason they give insight of the controversy. Although the journal is short (6 pages) I found it useful in the way that the authors introduce the controversy and give examples of how to fix them for research to advance.

Naturally, he shares this belief with many people especially those viewing this from a religious standpoint. Religiously, people regard the use of embryonic stem cells as unnecessarily throwing away the lives of humans in the name of medical advancement, which, in the end, does not justify it. Some have even gone further to support this belief by citing part of the Hippocratic Oath which states “first, do no harm” (Kiessling 184-94).

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.