Embryo Studies Pros And Cons

Research involving embryos is restricted to the first 14 days of development which is the point where the fetus starts to form. Further study can significantly increase mankind’s knowledge about human development, but there are difficulties continuing the studies due to the short time limit. After years of trying, a close cousin of mine is now pregnant, ecstatic that she finally has a chance to have the child she longed for. Her husband, with a look of despair recently told me about how there are studies that collect human embryos in an attempt to learn more about life only to destroy them after their usage expires. After seeing the anguish that they found in these studies, I became more interested in the topic. With the possibility of the

14 day rule being challenged, one major question is brought to light, is it moral to create a potential life for the convenience of research only to end it without any remorse for an unguaranteed chance to cure or help other people that are already living?
There is a strict guideline proposed by the United States in 1979 that restricts embryo studies to the first two weeks of development.

This cutoff was created “to guarantee that moral boundaries would be maintained” (Williams et al. 2003). The creation of this policy has given scientists all over the world a clear stopping point in which research must cease. In the February of 1994, a human embryo research panel was formed to discuss whether or not embryo studies are morally acceptable or not. Though their results ended up being slightly ambiguous, the final charge was that an embryo is not a “full human subject and does not merit full protectability” (Tauer 1997). However, though research was deemed acceptable at this stage, the panel also began to create some criteria for when the research would be acceptable. It was determined that there must be “moral consideration as a developing form of human life” as well as evidence “of human benefit” from the research (Tauer 1997). That is to say that research on embryos are allowed so long as they are treated with

respect.
Ethically, there are many reasons and factors that would play into why people choose to be either for or against embryo studies. The main argument that proponents will use to support these studies is that further research could allow scientists to “study all aspects of early human development with unprecedented precision” (Hyun et al. 2016). In addition to this, if embryonic studies are allowed to continue, stem cell research could be further developed in order to possibly cure diseases or grow organs. There are also many supporters of such research who attempt to stress the “non-personhood of the embryo and its lack of consciousness or feeling” (Williams et al. 2003). Further progressions in the study on embryos can contribute new insight about the mysteries of human function and development, which in turn could possibly even bring the healthcare industry to a whole new level altogether. With the knowledge that this type of research work is only being performed on a ball of cells rather than a living, sentient entity, why would anyone ever oppose? However, this is the exact opposite of what some believe. The primary opposition statement against the embryo studies is that an embryo is “a potential human person worthy of respect” (Mclaren 2001). In order to shed light on new developmental findings and properly conduct these studies, human embryos are simply used then destroyed. Those that are opposed to this ‘inhumane’ way of researching, do so with the belief that all humans start out as an embryo and that “there is an implicit dignity and inviolability in the individual continuity of a human life” (Hurlbut 2005). To further expand on this standpoint, under no given event is the elimination of a blameless life morally acceptable in modern society. Furthermore, people advocating against the embryo studies compare the research to cannibalism. It is akin to supporters believing that they are at liberty to “plunder a unique, tender new life-and raid it for spare parts” (Williams et al. 2003). People oppose this greatly because of similar reasons to abortion oppositions, the embryo “cannot give informed consent” (McLaren 2001). Each side of the spectrum offers valid arguments, but in the end the main dispute is over the social roles and morals that are portrayed.
With all of the quarreling over the ethics of the 14 day constraint, a social question is posed to the public.

What is an embryo’s social status? This question alone has fueled debates from various perspectives, but it all boils down to two sides: if the embryo is a living entity or not. Overall, the matters of life and death can not be simply seen as black and white. Moreover it is not something so easily interpreted at face value. How do we determine when life starts? What is the catalyst that brings a simple non-living particle to life? Perhaps it is when one starts to actually starts to display specific characteristics, but really, “there is no meaningful moment when one can definitively designate the biological origins of a human characteristic such as consciousness” (Hurlbut 2005). Others think that life begins when you can experience pain which in humans is “when the embryo develops into a fetus” (Hyun et al. 2016). The term we consider life starts a social controversy throughout the entire world, and this is why there is a critical dilemma about the morality of the 14 day

rule.
In the future, the 14 day mark may be challenged to be further expanded. This is due to the efforts many supporters who have lobbied government policies as well as urging various researchers forward to work with embryos in hopes of maybe finding a cure to degenerative diseases and so on. However, it is highly unlikely that “embryos would survive much beyond the 14-day mark” (Reardon). Being aware of this, the 14 day limitation will not have a chance of being expanded unless new developments that fix this solution is founded. On the other hand, resilient protestors may prove successful in having all embryo studies banned. With the constant worry that their immoral doings may lead to dire consequences, the people in charge may decide that the risks outweigh the benefits. Ultimately, there will most likely be no changes in the near future because even though further research can benefit humanity as a whole the whole situation of morality also has to be put into consideration.