The Ethics 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.

Stem Cell research and its funding have caused a lot of controversy throughout the past years. Stem cells are cells that are present in all living organisms. These cells have the potential to grow into any type of cell, including blood cells, nerves, muscles, and pancreatic cells. Stem cell research is essential because of the beneficial aspects it has to offer. Stem cells could potentially treat conditions such as Alzheimer 's, Parkinson 's, birth defects, strokes, Diabetes, cancer, and help in the reconstruction of severely damaged organs. Although stem cell research withholds great potential for many medical advances, a lot of controversy surrounds the sources and methods of obtaining stem cells and the possibility of improper usage of the knowledge acquired from research and experimentation. It is necessary for scientist to continue research as well as recognizing any ethical issues that may be present.

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.

Stem cell derivatives may be a beneficial source of transplantable cells that may be able to repair and regenerate certain tissues. If this could be accomplished, the medical benefits would be enormous, such as helping Parkinson disease, MS, diabetes, and muscular dystrophies. Although, this could be an extremely important advancement in the field of medicine, there exist many ethical and religious issues that look down upon destroying embryos for research. The stem cells that are focused on in this report are embryonic stem cells. However, adult stem cells may also be used to give rise to lineages of cells that are more specialized than themselves. They are more differentiated than embryonic stem cells. Research using adult stem cells is much less controversial since they can be obtained without destroying an embryo. There is also a strong political aspect that has been brought up in recent discussions regarding groups who try to push adult stem cell research over embryonic stem cell research since they consider it a more permissible option. In contrast, people in favor of embryonic stem cell research try to discredit the potential of adult stem cell studies.

The studying of stem cells is a very controversial issue that has been around since 1998 when the research of the use of embryonic stem cell treatment began. The main issues surrounding the discussion of treating people with life-altering disabilities through the use of these pluripotent cells is the ethicality of the matter and whether or not it is a savage act against a fetus. Many who oppose the use of these stem cells derived from excess embryos use the formerly stated opinion to support their argument, while those who are pro research argue that the destroying of one life could save another. The core complications that arise in studying stem cells lies in many Christian-like ethics and morals, otherwise called Christian bioethics. These are rooted in the modern day controversies arising due to advancements made in biology and medicine, mixed with religious views that argue against it. The conflicting interests of the polar opposites which are scientists and those with religious views have caused many complications along the way to discovering new treatments and cures for diseased cells. This bumpy road which has refrained scientists from making tremendous breakthroughs must smooth itself out, and the only way possible is through coming to an agreement that certain stem cell research should be practiced, such as the IPSC and adult stem cells, and others like the

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.

There are people who disagree on the morality of using human embryonic cells, and stem cell research in general, nonetheless. Some stubborn pro-life organizations insist that the destruction of the “blastocyst, which is a laboratory-fertilized human egg” (White), is on the same level as murdering a human child and is entirely immoral and unacceptable. Even if these embryonic cells are being used to save lives and cure diseases, they believe it is wrong because the cells were taken at the cost of a

Society tends to only focus on the black and white when it comes to controversial issues and forgets about the gray area that is almost always there. Embryonic stem cell research and treatment is no exception to this phenomenon. Kristina Hug writes about what she believes to be the four arguments for the ethical dilemmas surrounding stem cell research in her article titled “Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Ethical Dilemma”. Like the authors of the previous article mentioned said, Hug agrees that the two moral principles that stem cell research forces us to choose between are the duty to respect the embryo versus the duty to protect the sick. However, they offer other views along the spectrum and reasons why people are for and against each viewpoint. The first viewpoint provided states that “the embryo has full moral status from fertilization onwards”. It says the criteria for ‘personhood’ is notoriously unclear and different people define what makes a person a person in different ways. Ones who agree with this statement argue that development from an embryo into a baby is an ongoing process and it is impossible to pinpoint when exactly personhood begins. They also argue that an embryo is simply a person in the embryonic stage and although it does not currently have the characteristics of a person, they will eventually become a person and should be given the same rights and respect people receive. The second viewpoint states that “there is a cut-off point at fourteen days after fertilization”. The source says that some people argue that a human embryo deserves special protection from around day fourteen after fertilization. A reason why people argue that point is that fertilization is a process, not a ‘moment’ and an embryo in the earliest stages is not yet clearly defined as an individual. The third viewpoint in this

Embryonic Stem cells have led to a very long line of discussion. Whether to see it as immoral not to pursue research or immoral to pursue research, it is nonetheless very difficult to discuss. Questions are uncovered during this debate, for example, Is killing possible life (Embryos) lesser or greater than saving the already living, such as people with incurable diseases? The debate goes deeper and deeper into moral judgment and it doesn't matter whether you are religious or not in this argument because in both cases it is a life. But what if it didn't have to be a life? Further forms of research may be used to help save lives both from people who have incurable diseases and the embryos. If such research can be formed without a moral block, performance of such research should not be delayed. The possibility to save loved ones is incredible, to do so without victimizing women for embryos and killing those embryos, which could possibly behold life, only to maybe

Currently, the use of research is to understand how the body develops from a fertilized egg and investigating how to produce more cells (Cox 1). However, there are limitations because of the uncertainty of how to fully control differentiation of these type of cells (Cox 1). Although they have solely been used for these specific expenditures, the problem still lies with “murdering” human lives. The people who support the embryonic stem cell research claim that the week-old blastocysts are only clusters of cells; therefore, they do not constitute as human beings (Rebecca 2). This is where they are wrong. They believe that because these cells, embryonic stem cells, are not “human”, they should not have the same human rights granted to the more advanced stages of cell growth. This is unjust because once the fetus starts to develop in the mother’s womb, it is a child with a life. The implementation of the embryo into the uterus wall around six days after fertilization counts as having life (Hug 1). Overall, embryos possess the same rights and are thus entitled to the same protections as are afforded to other human beings and in 2006, President Bush had ordered the limited funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells because of its violation of human rights (“Euro Stem Cell” 2). This demonstrates the seriousness of embryos having

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

Embryonic stem cell research can be easily defined. A stem is defined as something that is developed from. A cell is defined as a microscopic living organism. According to Dennis Hollinger, "Embryonic stem cell research uses from the embryo's inner cell mass that give rise to each of the human body's many different tissue types"(1). In our modern day society, stem cell research has become a controversial topic. Several people strongly oppose the idea of the research, but many are struggling for the continuance of the program. Embryonic stem cell research should be allowed to continue because it aids in the search of cures for diseases, offers an alternative to discarding unused embryos from in vitro fertilization, and is supported by the

Stem cell research and engineering is a widely disputed topic that often divides people in science, ethics, and religion. In order to fully understand the controversy surrounding this area of scientific research and discovery, one must be informed as to what stem cells are. In the article, “Human Embryonic Stem Cells: Research, Ethics and Policy”, stem cells are described as “primitive cells with the capacity to divide and give rise to more identical stem cells or to specialize and from specific cells of somatic tissues” (Wert 672). Essentially, stem cells can potentially provide an unlimited supply of cells that could form some or all body cells. This ability to transform into different types or all types of cells depends of the type of stem cell, which can be divided into embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells (Bishop 1). Embryonic stem cells are extracted from preimplantation embryos and are pluripotent, meaning they possess the ability to form cells of all tissues in the adult human body. Adult stem cells, however, are limited to what tissues they can transform into.

To add opposing force, some ethicists believe that the human embryo is the most vulnerable of human beings and that destruction of it should be forbidden. A Lutheran bioethicist proclaims, "the human embryo is the weakest and least advantaged of our fellow human beings," and citing Karl Barth adds, "and no community is `really strong if it will not carry its...weakest members' " (Peters and Bennett 187). There are those who hold a parallel yet contradictory position when it comes to embryonic cells. They do not recognize the