Three Pronged Management

Just recently, in March of 2009, President Obama lifted the Federal ban on the funding stating: “At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions.” Obama believes, like many others, that this type of research, though ethically triggering, can improve the survival rate of some diseases and in turn improve the live span of many worldwide. “Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research, from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit, and from a government willing to support that work.” Obama also understand that research like this can take years to produce a positive and worthwhile result, but in order to produce such a result, support is needed by both the government and the people. He understands the costs, but believes that the benefits outweigh them. (“Obama on lifting…”)

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.

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,

Controversy surrounding research and therapeutic use of stem cells has been a contentious and socially polarizing matter for a few decades. Arguments lie largely between the scientific community and the general public, although intragroup disagreements also persist today. These disparate views for and against stem cells arise out of the bioethical implications of an inchoate innovation, the general public’s tenuous understanding of the underlying technology itself, and sociopolitical ideologies. Due to the somewhat aged debate, recent revelations and advancements have changed the principle arguments and should be addressed accordingly.

In the past two decades, many technological and scientific advances have been made in order to make life easier for many people who suffer from cancer, disease and sickness. Among these advances there is something revolutionary called stem cells. Stem cells can help restore and regenerate almost all parts of the human body such as the heart, kidney, liver, and many other organs. Although stem cells offer a lot, there are many views against and for stem cells, and among these views lies the debate of whether stem cells should be legalized or not (NIH 2). Stem cells offer exciting new opportunities in the field of science such as regenerating human body parts, but many people are still debating whether or not the use of stem cells is

“How can the use of stem cells be so controversial?”, one may ask. If the stem cells are donated out of free will or were going to be destroyed anyway, how can putting them to better use be controversial? Sure, a potential life must be destroyed to save a life, but only before one can tell that it is a human. Should the use of stem cells for medical research and use be regulated? These questions and more will be discussed and pondered throughout this paper.

Throughout the course of history, healthcare advancements have been some of the most important events to happen to the human race. Whether it was the invention of the first stethoscope or the first vaccine for polio, these findings have helped lengthen and improve human life, as well as aid scientists in better understanding humans as a species. In recent years, embryonic stem cells have been discovered to offer a variety of benefits to many different diseases and disorders. However, despite their amazing potential, the source of these lifesaving cells have brought up the question of ethics and morals in the scientific and medical communities as well as mainstream media. Is stem cell research worth the dangers and moral controversies 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

Imagine a world where various cancers could be cured. Imagine a world where genetic diseases could be cured. Imagine a world where Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and blindness could be cured. Such a world may seem unrealistic, but the answer to these diseases may be closer than they appear; stem cell research. Stem cell research and its funding have caused enormous controversy over the past decade. It has produced differences of opinion from both ethical and legal views, causing some countries such as the European Union to legalize SCR while other, like the United States, have laws prohibiting it. However, the US government should legalize

This paper discusses the recent history of stem cell research in the United States, tracking the controversies, politics, and promise of new technology that comes with a moral price. Starting in August of 2001, with President Bush's request that Stem Cell Research not be paid for with federal funding, the battle of science against religion began. (Rosenburg, 2001) Despite extreme pressure from the science community, and the threat of falling behind other nations in this critical research, President Bush never rescinded his ban on federal funding of stem cell research. President Obama, since March 2009, has lifted this ban on federal funding of stem cell research, and for the past three years American scientists have been playing catch up with the rest of the world. The future of stem cell research is promising, but the upcoming presidential field, especially Candidate Rick Santorum, is a threat to the pursuance of this most precious technology. It looks as though the more moderate Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination, however, and therefore federal funding for stem cells may continue even if Romney wins the general election in November. Stem Cell Research is only seen as a controversial methodology by a small subset of American citizens, yet this subset is extremely vocal. The future of stem cell research looks to be determined by how

For decades, researchers’ use of stem cells has caused a controversy and the consideration of the ethics of research involving the development, usage, and destruction of human embryos. Most commonly, this controversy focuses on embryonic stem cells. Not all stem cell research involves the creation, usage and destruction of human embryos. For example, adult stem cells, amniotic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells do not involve creating, using or destroying human embryos and thus are minimally, if at all, controversial. Many less controversial sources of acquiring stem cells include using cells from the umbilical cord, breast milk, and bone marrow. (Brunt, 2012) In 1998, scientists discovered how to extract stem cells from human embryos. This discovery led to moral ethics questions concerning research involving embryo cells, such as what restrictions should be made on studies using these types of cells? At what point does one consider life to begin? Is it just to destroy an embryo cell if it has the potential to cure countless numbers of patients? Political leaders are debating how to regulate and fund research studies that involve the techniques used to remove the embryo cells. No clear consensus has emerged. Other recent discoveries may extinguish the need for embryonic stem cells. With this in mind, we will discover both sides of the issue from a pros and cons point of view. Stem cell research has expanded at an exponential rate, but its therapeutic

“Now science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists with many answers that have for so long been beyond our grasp.” (Nancy Reagan). Most cells within our bodies perform one specialized task. Contrary to these single job cells are stem cells. These cells are unspecialized and can morph and perform any task that is needed within the body. However, the way that stem cells are harvested has caused a lot of controversy. The way that the stem cells are taken destroys the embryo. We should support the recent decision to allow embryonic stem-cell research in the United States and federally fund the work to use these stem cells to cure diseases. Better stem cell research would provide safer procedures and medical practices for everyone.

In the United States, the only FDA approved stem-cell therapy is through hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, which is only used to treat certain types of cancer and more recently patients with autoimmune diseases. These overseas hospitals and clinics, which claim to have too good to be true stem-cell treatments are in fact too good to be true. While these physicians are posting published papers in peer review journals supporting the effectiveness of these treatments and including customer testimonials, these sources should not be trusted. Taking Emma to see a physician at a clinic in Brazil would not only be extremely expensive for you and your family, there would be no benefit for Emma as there is a chance that she might not even receive stem cells. Anecdotal cautionary tales exist where many individuals seek out the potential benefits of overseas stem-cell therapies only to loose all of their life savings and have their hopes

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

Stem cell research is costly. In any case, backers say it will one day yield cures that could spare Americans billions in long haul human services costs. California is currently a world pioneer in stem cell research. Supporters of the science trust this field won 't just spare lives however perhaps spare the state 's economy too. Among the critical advantages that stem cell research can get the financial and social levels for people and additionally for the general public itself, figures the trust that it would likewise help in enhancing the treatment and discovering the cure of a mixed bag of medicinal issues, for example, spinal rope wounds, the substitution or reparation of harmed organs, the Alzheimer 's sickness, conception imperfections, heart ailments, Parkinson 's infection, diabetes sort one, strokes, secure transplantations without the stresses that the individual 's resistant framework would dismiss the new transplanted