Stephen Napier on Stem Cell Research

The dispute which is being analyzed in this paper is one of mass debate today. The argument is on whether or not embryonic stem cells should be used to come up with forms of treatment for degenerative diseases such as: Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and Diabetes. The author of this paper is Stephen Napier he is in association with the Bioethics center in Philadelphia, PA. The article was published in the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy in 2009.

In this article Mr. Napier reviews past arguments on the current debate and provides the reader with his stance against the use of Stem cells as a form of research and furthermore he argues the stance on vulnerability of a fetus and if it has moral values equal to an adult person.

In the beginning of the paper he gives an introduction on the strategies that the two opposing parties (Pro Life/Choice) bring to the tables. Those who are for ESCr usually say that an embryo is not a physical being and that the brain transplant could vouch for it, however those who oppose it say that there is life within each embryo and that it is morally wrong to proceed with the research ( Napier, 496-7). In the next section of his article he begins to describe the research failures and the Belmont report. He describes the Nazi experiments as well as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment in Africa. In the wake of these things surfacing the United States adopted The National Research Act of 1974 to protect ethical principles in research. He then describes the Belmont report and the three basic principles it outlined. The three that they outline are respect for a person, beneficence and justice (Napier, 497).

In his next session of the paper he talks about the vulnerability aspect of fetal embryos. It is in this s...

... middle of paper ...

... as a human subject who is vulnerable and therefore worthy of protection (Napier, 499-500). In his last point on vulnerability he explains why the embryo should be protected. If the regulations are any indication of ethical consensus, then the moral intuition most people have is that the more vulnerable a subject is the greater is the need for protecting that subject (Napier, 501). X is vulnerable if X lacks a person hood capacity, the property of being vulnerable applies only to persons, and lacking person hood properties entails that one is not a person (Napier, 503). He finds inconsistency in this argument that critics provide and thinks that although the embryo may not be able to show personal abilities they still possess them.

Works Cited

Napier S.(2009) ARegulatory Argument Against Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. The Journal of medicine and philosophy