There Was A Seventeen-Year-Old Boy Named Joe Beene That

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.

Stem Cell research is beneficial and the better understanding of Stem Cells may be able to cure diseases with high fatality rates however the sacrifices of unborn babies and the victim of abortions is immoral. Stem Cell research is contradictory to its purpose because sacrificing humans to create a better life for humans is monstrous. Stem Cell research uses embryos and starts from scratch just like Frankenstein being stitched together. Shelly views the creation of humans monstrous through the eyes Victor Frankenstein.

Are embryonic stem cells the cure to many of the human body’s ailments, including defective organs and crippling diseases, or is their use a blatant disregard of human rights and the value of life?  Thanks to the rapid advancements in this field, the potential benefits of stem cells are slowly becoming reality.  However, embryonic stem cell research is an extremely divisive topic in the United States thanks to the ethical issues surrounding terminating embryos to harvest the stem cells.  In response to this debate, Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker amendment in 1995 to prohibit federal funding of research that involved the destruction of embryos.  President Bush affirmed this decision, but more recently President Obama lifted many of

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

Reagan watched as her husband’s disease began to incapacitate him and knew she had to push harder to find a possible treatment. The search led her to Stem Cell Research. She prayed that one day someone would find a cure. Unfortunately, there were a lot of people who are against stem cell research. In the early 2000’s, the nation of public funding for Embryonic Stem-Cell research was controversial and divisive, with many Republicans tying the issue to abortion. (parenthetical citation article STAT article written by Shelia Kaplan 3/6/16). While Mrs. Reagan was at a Juvenile Diabetes event, she took advantage of the opportunity to speak out about how science is giving us some hope with stem cell research. Proceeding full steam ahead, Nancy took influence all the way to the White House. In 2001, she wrote to President George W. Bush, who opposed harvesting cells from discarded human embryos – and her words seemed to have made a difference. (parenthetical citation – article written by Sheila Kaplan 3/6/16). President Bush changed his mind and did not ban Stem Cell Research funding, but he did put restrictions on it. Once again a road block presented itself. The federal legislation was trying to block state funding, but is was Nancy back at the plate. She called many lawmakers to make sure there were no obstructions going forward. Nancy educated the public on where the cells come from, how they are kept, and how they are

In our government today Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President are all faced with making tough decisions for our country. These decisions are not only decided based off the constitution but the ideological shift as generations go on. Possibly one of the most controversial landmark decisions the government is currently being challenged with is the affair of abortion. In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States was presented the case of Roe v Wade. The ruling decided a person has the right to privacy protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment. This gave women the right to decide to have an abortion, but only under regulations from the state. As a result of this case, scientific research was conducted on stem cells starting in 1978 when a scientist discovered stem cells in human cord blood. From 1981 to 1991 scientist tested stem cells in mice, hamsters, and later in primates. 1998 marked an important discovery of pluripotent stem cells in an embryo, which is where the problem lies between the morals and ethics of citizens and the politicians’ jobs to decide for the people what is right for stem cell research.

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

Stem cells on the other hand can be obtained from early human embryos. They develop with the baby and these cells become more committed to certain destinations of the body. The book has provided different cases, of which, Rios Case is very interesting. The Rios died childless because their embryos were frozen in the lab for years and were deteriorating, and made the issue moot (Pence, 2015). Another chapter was “Medical Research on Vulnerable Human Subjects” which explores the ethical problems of medical research. It gives great details on the entire conflict happening in medical research, especially those researches sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. (Pence, 2015) The other chapter, we read was “Surgeons’ Desire for Fame: Ethics of the First Transplants”. Fame is something that everyone wants, and to achieve this even the doctors can play an ugly game. This chapter talks about how doctors have been involved in questionable heart implants and other illegal materials. Doctors are supposed to save lives, not destroy lives just to get famous or to be the first to do something. These were the terms I have been hearing a lot, but I never read in great detail about. It was very helpful to get all the information. (Pence,

The example of Paul Gelsinger from Ricki Lewis’ The Forever Fix: Gene Therapy and the Boy Who Saved It (2012) shows how a parent’s desire to help a sick child can be misguided, even though their intentions are good. Situations like Paul Gelsinger’s are important to reference when discussing human research ethics because it illustrates how ethics of care can cloud rationale or hinder thorough investigation of treatment for children. Paul’s son, Jesse Gelsinger, was a teenager who suffered from a genetic disorder called Ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency also known as OTC deficiency. The disease affects the liver; individuals cannot metabolize ammonia, leading to elevated levels of the compound in the blood which can harm nervous tissue in

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

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

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.

While some people might say that stem cell research is immoral and unethical, others believe that it is a magical solution for almost any problem, thus leading to a very controversial issue. Scientists have been searching for years for ways to eradicate incurable diseases and perform other medical procedures that yesterday's technology would not fix. With the rapidly arising, positive research on stem cell technology, the potential that exists to restore any deficiency is in the same way, likely to destroy humanity. America is suffering from its inability to choose who holds precedence over this issue. Too many of us find it impossible to reach a basis for which our differing opinions can be shared and formed into a universal and

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