The Ethics Of Embryo Research

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

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.

Although the intentions of genetically modifying DNA in human embryos is aimed to rid society of genetic defects, it is still essential that this scientific discovery remains ethical. In an article on NPR.org, Rob Stein describes an experiment that scientists have been conducting in which they modify human DNA in order to eliminate life threatening genetic diseases that could be passed on for generations (Stein). In Portland, at Oregon Health & Science University, Paula Amato, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, explains “that their work is aimed at preventing terrible diseases, not creating genetically enhanced people...much more research is needed to confirm the technique is safe and effective before anyone tries to make a baby this way”(Stein). Because scientists like Amato realize their research is controversial, they are taking every precaution to assure what they are doing is morally correct, they are not intending to corrupt society. Although their intentions are good, it is their job to make sure their research is being used in an ethical way. If not, millions of people, who are already obsessed with the idea of perfection, will be able to do something about

This report describes how ethics involving embryos has been ongoing for 25 years but has significantly increased with the stem cell controversy. Another issue brought up by this report is whether or not federal funds should be spent on an issue that is so ethically

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.

When talking about the ethical issue surrounding embryonic stem cells their are 2 main moral principles:

Embryonic stems are a controversial topic with morals and ethical issues. For embryonic stem cells to work you must destroy the early embryo. This in some people's eyes is destroying potential life in the embryo. There are some that believe that life begins in the blastula that has not embedded into the uterus wall. For life to occur the cell must be embedded. Religion plays a factor in the ethical dilemma in the topic because they believe it is alive and all life is precious. Stem cells can be used to heal people so they do not have to suffer. They can be used for damages to the spinal cord which is huge because the spinal cord does not heal. There are countless uses for stem cells but it all goes back to the ethical dilemma which is stem

“While we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.” This quote comes from former president George W. Bush during a radio conference where he discussed his decision to allow federal funds to be used for stem cell research only in cases where the embryos were not harmed. While still in the beginning stage of exploration, stem cell research, and more specifically embryonic stem cell research, has become a topic of great debate. The ethics and procedures involved have come into question not only by the Catholic Church, but also by many citizens and even our presidents. The morality of this new scientific development lies in the way these stem cells are obtained. For scientists to acquire embryonic stem cells they must be removed from a destroyed embryo. For some this is just a small obstacle or nuisance in technicalities as to what a human being is, while for other it is seen as murder and the taking of a life before it even had a chance. Another reason the use of embryos is frowned upon is because of the alternate and successfully proven approach of using somatic stem cells, which do not require any human life to be harmed. The Catholic Church, being an institution of God and supporting all life, for obvious reasons cannot be a supporter of embryonic stem cell research because of the

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.

In addition, there is a general difference between embryos in laboratory and embryos in the womb. The embryo in the womb has a definite chance of developing into a child unless a deliberate human act interrupts its growth, an embryo in the laboratory can only develop into a child if there is a deliberate human act (Singer and Dawson, 1988). To appear in a logical thinking, if there is a fire accident in the hospital laboratory and the fireman has to decide whether to save a newborn baby or embryos in Petri dishes, which one should he save? Technically, everyone would opt to save the newborn baby over the embryos in the Petri dishes, but this is not meant to say that embryos do not deserve a protection at all because of the fact that only one living being is saved instead of other and jumping into a quick conclusion that the unsaved

Since genetic modification of human embryos can lead to mass failure, the government has put regulations to minimize threats and unethical experimental research. One suggestion in the 1990’s introduced by the Human Embryo Research panel stated they would encourage the research if “ there is reasonable confidence that any child born as a result of the procedures has not been harmed by them” (Dresser). Therefore this encouraged Congress in 1997 to introduce a regulation which banned NIH funding embryo research, in regards to, the regulations of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Dresser). However this policy only addressed funding for the research not stopping the research from occurring. Although in the policy Common Rule in 1991, congress defined a “human subject” as a “living individual” applying directly to the modified embryo inserted into a woman's uterus as a human (Dresser). Moreover, this would cause the institute of research to report to their board for evaluation to continue their research. Policies surrounding the process of embryo somatic

The first ethical issue involves the potential commercialization of babies – genetically engineered babies become pets and objects that can be bought. The genetically modified baby might be treated as a robot or a disposable object relative to the baby born from the mother’s womb. This might raise moral issues concerning the ethical treatment of genetically modified babies.

In “British scientists granted permission to genetically modify human embryos, ” Sarah Knapton explains some of the details and controversy surrounding a group of scientists who have been given permission to modify human embryos. For the second time in human history, the first time it has been directly approved, they will deactivate certain genes in embryos to see how it will affect the development of the child in an attempt to identify which genes cause malformations. This could lead to fewer miscarriages, genetic malformations, and increase an individual's fertility. Despite this, there are those worried that this will have poor implications and will lead to common genetically modified humans. This technology has been warned against many

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.

As scientific research broadens its scope to accommodate new technology and theories, controversial issues are debated and inspected, all in hopes of finding answers to long awaited scientific questions. Though science has come across many ethical road blocks set forth by the government, lawyers, and even the community it has continued to move forward in the hopes of encountering creative, constructive, and confounding new ways of creating cures for problems seen by many. Bioethics, as defined by Merriam Websters, is “the discipline dealing with the ethical implications of biological research and applications especially in medicine” (“Bioethics”). Bioethics can be found in almost every form of research, two of which will be focused on in this research paper, the question of when science begins to overstep it’s boundaries and what can be considered ‘acceptable’ from a scientific standpoint will discussed in reference to stem cell research and genetic testing on animals and humans.