Ethics of Stem Cell Research
Stem cell research offers great promise for understanding basic mechanisms of human development and differentiation, as well as the hope for new treatments for diseases such as diabetes, spinal cord injury, Parkinson's disease, and myocardial infarction. However, human stem cell (hSC) research also raises sharp ethical and political controversies. The derivation of pluripotent stem cell lines from Cited by: Mar 11, · The scientific and ethical debate regarding the use of stem cells in medical research has been raging for over a decade. With President Obama reversing the previous administration’s limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, this debate can only intensify in .
Even though stem cells have been used in human embryonic stem cell research to help revolutionize healthcare and cure disease; it is an area of science which raises ethical debates. This is because of the stem cells used in most research are extracted from embryos and whhat, which makes it an area of science which is difficult for the law to regulate. Stem cell research should continue because of the many benefits of successful stem cell usage, such as the ability to cure disease, fix organs, and identify birth defects.
Many people find sten stem cell research is ethical and helpful to the society. Eebate embryos are fertilized in the in vitro fertilization clinic and donated for research purposes.
Stem cells are important to living organism because they have unique regenerative abilities. If scientists can directly differentiate the embryonic stem cells into specific cell types, they can use them to treat certain diseases like diabetes, traumatic spinal cord injury, and heart disease in the future. Driven by these prospects, lab scientists are already making an effort to use stem cells to screen new drugs and identify the cause of birth defects by developing model systems.
The stem cells used to treat the disease are now referred to as regenerative or reparative medicine in cell-based therapies.
Research on stem cells have not yet been fully developed, but it is an expanding field of scientific what does the cattle are lowing mean. There has been legislation passed and corrected to please both sides of the Stem Cell debates.
Political parties debate about how to fund stem what type of music does andrea bocelli sing research, but many do not want taxpayer dollars to be used in funding unethical embryo abou stem cell research.
However, there are some senators like Orrin Hatch who agree with stem cell research. However, each president has their own ideas and agreements and create different laws. Different governments around the globe have passed down different legislations to regulate stem cell researching. Many critics of stem cell research that the use of stem cells is not ethical because of the extraction of stem cells of fertilized human embryos.
The critics believe that these embryos are living and breathing human beings since all life begins and starts as a single cell. However, opposing sides argue that life technically begins after the zygote becomes an organism. Stem cells and organisms are both alive, yet organisms have differentiated characteristics that distinguish them from the stem cells. This definition stresses that parts interact with others to form an organism.
By definition, life begins when the stem cells become an organism, so it proves that the opinion is false. In addition, people against stem cell tbe would argue that it goes against ethics because the fetus will be able to feel pain. However, according to research done by Dr. Furthermore, in a JAMA review, researchers tracked the process in receptor and spinal cord development.
However, the growth of the fetus would be too far along by that period of time for stem cell research. Lastly, as another point to contradict the belief that the fetus would be able to feel pain at the point of stem cell extraction, JAMA makes another statement that informs readers of when the neurons in the spinal cord would be developed. This would mean that the pain signals, if they are strong enough, would not be how to squirt for girls to be registered in the brain.
These three arguments as listed above are enough to contradict the belief that stem cell research is not ethical since the fetus would not be able to feel pain. Others believe that stem cell research would only be ethical if the donors had consent and were informed, whqt they believe that the extra cells are taken away to be experimented on without permission.
This is a false statement due to the fact that there are guidelines and rules that researchers have to abide by. Research laboratories like the National Institute of Health and the California Institute of Health have an extensive consent process to ensure that the stem cell research and donation are not fraudulent.
Policies vary to whether or not a woman is compensated for her egg donations, but most jurisdictions allow donors to be ie for direct costs like traveling whereas some laboratories allow payments or extraction services to be provided free of cost to egg donors.
Since people have expressed concern about the monitoring of research and penalties, the National Institute of Health provided guidelines to reassure the public.
Under these guidelines, all stem cell research must abide by rules like 45 CFR what is the ethical debate about stem cell research This way, anyone who did not comply with the terms would cause NIH to take different enforcement actions. NIH can do this by limiting funds, conducting investigations, and suspend the research. Stem cell research is ethical because it is helpful to the society. With successful stem cell usage, it is possible to cure disease, fix organs, and identify birth defects.
There would be a greater good to the country well-being if stem cells were used to help cure people. Accessed 6 Feb. Lee, Susan J.
Accessed 13 Abouh. Lo, Benard, reseadch Lindsay Parham. MNT Editorial Team, editor. Department of Health and Human Services, stemcells. University of Utah. Genetics vebate, University of Utah, learn. A current sophomore at Walt Whitman High School. View all how to install windows xp on windows 7 dual boot by Min Yeung. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account.
You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. References: CIRM. Share this: Twitter Facebook. Like this: Like Loading Published by. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:.
Email required Address never made public. Name required. Previous Previous post: The Quest for Immortality.
Sep 07, · If the treatment of these diseases will be improved through stem cell research, then virtue ethics may find this research ethical from the point of view of eudaimonia and achieving a virtuous state. Conversely, some virtue ethicists find it unethical to terminate embryo life for stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research poses a moral dilemma. It forces us to choose between two moral principles: In the case of embryonic stem cell research, it is impossible to respect both moral niceloveme.com obtain embryonic stem cells, the early embryo has to be destroyed. This means destroying a potential human life. Nov 03, · The current ethical arguments against using embryonic stem cells are generally as follows. It is unethical because it destroys a human embryo. Embryonic stem cells can cause cancer when and if they become malignant. It is unnecessary to use them because adult stem cells provide a viable alternative.
Stem cell research is often at the forefront of heated ethical debates due to its assessment of human life. If stem cell research cannot be ethically defended, then it should not be conducted. The two opposing ethical arguments which have to be defended morally are that of utilitarianism and deontology. The Utilitarian argument of stem cell research is that, although the most valuable research has been derived from aborted human fetuses, stem cell research can cure multiple diseases and greatly advance science and medicine, so this is what should be done.
It rejects utilizing the results or consequences of an act to evaluate an act as moral and thus is a non-consequentialist theory.
Skeptics with a deontological view would counter-argue saying that it is unethical to destroy human life to save human life, so this should not be done. Both of these arguments are complex and need to be evaluated to conclude which has the higher benefit. Scientists and others who share a utilitarian stance support stem cell research by claiming the ethical cost is low compared to a high benefit. Unethical implications have included use embryo research and aborted fetuses. The controversy over using aborted fetuses for research was much higher prior to At this time, scientists defend this method on the bases that it would be better to use the fetuses to help humanity as opposed to throwing them away as waist.
At one week, embryos are merely a cluster of cells and not deserving of the protections afforded to others, they say. When conceived naturally, a blastocyst has not been implanted in the uterus by that time. Pro-Lifers, Antiabortionists, and others with a deontological stance oppose stem cell research.
Antiabortionists claim research done on human fetuses devalues human life, so the ethical cost of this research far outweighs the advantages. The primary premise of this argument is that it is unethical to destroy human life to save human life. Pope John Paul II has offered one argument designed to address this view when he wrote: Experience is already showing how a tragic coarsening of consciences accompanies the assault on innocent human life in the womb, leading to accommodation and acquiescence in the face of other related evils, such as euthanasia, infanticide, and most recently, proposals for the creation for research purposes of human embryos, destined to destruction in the process.
There are several new methods that have been developed since the start of the highly controversial stem cell debate which rectifies the major differences on both sides. New solutions such as Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells iPS acts as an alternate method to embryonic research in that it uses cellular reprogramming of adult skin cells. In order to determine that the transformations work properly and the cells are safe for therapeutic use, researchers need to compare the iPS cells to ES cells, which means destroying embryos.
With all of this said, I feel that stem cell research is extremely important. This research can save millions of lives, and alleviate the vast amounts of suffering; America is morally obligated to actively pursue stem cell research. This good in my opinion does not include human cloning for reasons such as replacing dead loved-ones, but this good could lead to positive human reproduction and many medical discoveries.
Skeptics are merely scarred of the unknown, and believe that science will abuse this research by immorally cloning humans which is highly possible since the cloning of animals has been practiced and documented from the beginning of the century. With further advancement in iPS, humans will be able to control human reproduction with great precision. Controlling human reproduction could work for the greater good when considering couples with disabilities and genetic diseases. Although abusing this practice is inevitable, it would not be a justifiable reason to ban or hinder research and development.
As new advances alter the possibilities of human reproduction, we must develop a morally sound body of law governing stem cell research and tissue donation so that we harness and promote the common good.
Hindering research only postpones talented scientists who are most qualified from accepting these types of scientific opportunities in research development. Currently, American federal funding can only go to research on stem cells from existing already destroyed embryos. Similarly, in Canada, as of , scientists cannot create or clone embryos for research but must used existing embryos discarded by couples.
I believe the deontological arguments are weak and commit several fallacies. The first fallacy involves abuse in human cloning. The argument is that stem cells can clone humans successfully and human cloning is immoral, therefore stem cell research is immoral and should not be done.
This is a weak inductive argument which commits a hasty generalization fallacy. Therefore, the evidence would not adequately support this conclusion, and would not follow from the premise as stated. Often the fallacy of hasty generalization can lead to damaging stereotypes made on the basis of just a few examples. The second argument involves the question of when a fertilized egg becomes a human life.
This is a weak inductive argument which commits a begging the question fallacy. If an egg is fertilized then it is a human being, and has rights, therefore destroying a fertilized egg is murder. The problem with this argument is that a fertilized egg is just a cluster of cells without a nervous system or vital signs which a human beings or, in this case, a fetus would possess.
To defend this argument on the bases of murder by the destruction of blastocysts cannot be justified. New research from the Univ. Therapeutic cloning remains banned in the U. About one in six respondents had mixed feelings or were undecided. Over two-thirds of respondents also approved of a newer, less-researched method — using modified adult cells as an alternative to using cells from in vitro fertilized embryos — if the use could cure cancer or treat heart attacks.
Less than 15 percent did not approve. About one in five had mixed feelings or was undecided. Almost half 43 to 47 percent of respondents also approve of the use of therapeutic cloning, stem cells from in vitro fertilized embryos and stem cells from an adult to treat allergies, but slightly over one in four do not. And, 28 to 29 percent have mixed feelings or are undecided in this regard.
These findings indicate that while more respondents approve of the use of these methods for treatment of less-serious conditions than disapprove of it, the approval is not as strong as it is for using these methods to treat more serious conditions and diseases, such as cancer or heart attacks.
Almost one-half 45 to 50 percent disapproved of this use, while only slightly more than one-quarter 25 to 29 percent approved of this use. About one-quarter had mixed feelings or were undecided. Respondents did not support human reproductive cloning, neither of themselves nor of a child who had died, with almost three-quarters 71 to 73 percent disapproving and only about one in 10 approving.
Respondents were quite evenly divided in their thoughts on animal cloning with slightly over a third approving, slightly over a third disapproving and about one-quarter having mixed feelings or being undecided.
Evans also found it interesting that the majority of respondents trusted their own judgment most when deciding on their approval or disapproval on stem cell research issues, rather than looking to their church or other authorities, such as governmental ethics committees.
The vast majority, over two-thirds, says that in deciding whether it is right to allow these treatments, they would follow their own judgment. Only 4 percent gave greater moral weight to the Catholic Church than to themselves, and even among committed church-going Catholics, only about one in five defer to the church on these matters.
Although Stem cell research is often at the forefront of heated ethical debates, new alternative methods of research have resolved key disputes amongst both sides. Stem cell research can be ethically defended, and it should be conducted as the benefits outweigh the immoral implications. However, promising developments in other areas of stem cell research might lead to solutions that bypass these ethical issues.
<- What to expect the first year review - How to make christmas yard art->