Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Stem Cells moral dilemma
Debate over government funding of stem cell research
Government funding to embryonic stem cell research
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Stem Cells moral dilemma
On April 28, 2011 - the United States Appeals Court overturned the rule of a federal judge because of several issues that emerged with stem cell research being funded by the government. Although, the science of human embryonic stem cell is in its initial stages - there is much hope for scientific advancement due to the ability for human embryonic stem cells to grow into virtually various kinds of cells Favorably, advocates for stem cell research and pharmaceutical companies strongly believe that stem cells may pave a way to discover new methods of treatment for devastating ailments; such as, Leukemia, Alzheimer’s disease, Heart disease, Parkinson’s disease and diabetes- a prospect that is inspiring to both scientists and those who are seeking cures for themselves and family members. In contrast, numerous pro-life advocates are against federal funding for stem cell research because of the method in which these stem cells are extracted. In addition, several other groups argue that the federal government has abandoned more substantial as well as promising and less controversial adult and cord stem cell research. Instead, the government has dedicated a majority of their funding in favor of the more popular and controversial stem research. Ultimately, as long as humans exist - the need for a more extensive and technological progress will be abundant and crucial to humanity's survival. However, does the needs of the human species outweigh the potential lives embryos represent? With so much on the line, let us explore exactly what human embryonic stem cell (HESC) research is and what may be potentially weighing in the balance for the human race if we proceed down this road.
Human embryonic stem cells derive from over 100+ types of...
... middle of paper ...
...eadlines on a regular basis it cannot be denied the importance of it no matter the controversies that may follow. Life saving technologies is within our reach. It almost sounds as though maybe someday we can order body parts from our doctor like we order car parts from our mechanic. However, what is the cost? At first glance, one would think that this is an issue of whether an embryo is indeed a human, but when you pull back the onion, the issue is more ethical than scientific. If we do not share the same ideals/moral codes how can we agree on whether human embryos deserve the right same rights as you and I. Because both moral principals—The duty to prevent vs. The duty to respect the value of human life—are impossible to honor both. With that said, because our cultures are so diverse, there may never be a consensus between the two groups.
Stem cell research has always been a widely debated topic in 'social and political forums' ever since the case of Roe vs. Wade in 1973. In that case the Supreme Court gave women the right to have an abortion whether or not they have a medical reason to. Whereas beforehand 'they needed a medical reason'. This "sparked controversy" over stem cell research with aborted fetuses. For many of those in favor of using fetal tissue for research it has too much "potential" in the future of medicine in terms of providing cures for diseases and "". Those against fetal tissue research believe it unethical to take one human life in order to preserve another.
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 these restrictions. Despite the significant portion of Americans that do not support embryonic stem cell research, it should be federally funded because of the potential health benefits, the definition of human, and the opportunity to clearly define regulations for ethical research.
This is because I do not see the human embryo as being alive, a view even supported by the Church of Scotland, a group against therapeutic cloning, as they are “unsure about when life begins” in regards to the embryo. As the embryo is not alive, “killing” it to benefit a large number of people who would no longer suffer is morally acceptable. It would also prevent any suffering from anything similar ever again, again justifying using embryos for therapeutic cloning; a contrasting view to this would be the view of the Roman Catholic Church who believe that the human embryo is a part of God, and therefore harming the embryo is harming God. Therefore they completely disallow the collection of STEM cells from embryos and ignore the positive consequences that are a result of using STEM cells from
Opposing Viewpoints offers unbiased opinions on the future of embryonic research as well as how they have currently been used to cure many diseases. In addition, the article specifies how developing ethical standards to ensure that the use of embryos remains moral, allows for science to remain ethical. Many of the topics mentioned in this viewpoint consider bioethics and remain consistent throughout. Essentially, the purpose of this article was to establish a middle ground between ethics and science.
Late one night a woman is driving home on the freeway, she’s hit head on by a drunk driver and killed. The man is charged with two accounts of murder; the woman, and her four-week-old embryo inside her. By law, everyone human being is guaranteed rights of life; born or unborn they are equal. The same law should be enforced concerning human embryonic stem cell research. Dr. James A. Thomson discovered stem cells in 1998 and they’ve intrigued scientist ever since. The stem cells themselves are derived from a three to four day old cluster of cells called a blastocyst and they are so coveted because they are pluripotent, meaning they can differentiate into any type of cell in the human body. Although embryonic stem cells show amazing potential to cure various disease such as cancer, congestive heart failure, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, muscular dystrophies, and more. The methods by which they are obtained is controversial. Research on embryonic stem cells is unethical, unnecessary, and purely homicide.
Children are the people who represent life in the future, and having children is the most desirable wish for every parent. In the past, if a couple couldn't have children, they just prayed and hoped that a miracle would happen to them. Besides, they could adopt children if they wished to. Everything has been changing since then. With new techniques in the medical field such as in vitro fertilization, a doctor can implant an embryo into a woman's body. This new techniques has brought so much happiness to many families. On the other hand, it has also caused so many controversial debates for the rights of the embryos. This issue once again has been brought up in the article titled "Rules for the Frozen Embryos," by Carol Numrich, published in 2002. In the article, the author gives us some cases where some people argue that the embryos are human, but others argue that the embryos are just some undifferentiated cells. However, in my opinion, the embryos should not be viewed strictly as human.
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.
...ns of a morally questionable nature. It is necessary that our practices remain ethical and that we uphold the value of a human life, as this is the cornerstone of human society. Embryonic stem cell research is one such operation that forces scientists, policy makers, and the larger society to define what constitutes a human life and to find an answer to the crucial question: Is it morally acceptable to violate the rights of a human life for the for the sake of medical progress?
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 government should support embryonic stem cell research by educating the public, increasing federal funds, and easing restrictions.
As for me I believe that that embryonic stem cell researches should be used in the biomedical field because however you see the embryo as alive or not, the research will always go in the same way as one of the moral dilemma that says "duty to prevent or alleviate suffering" as it could help millions of people with incurable diseases.
The President’s Council on Bioethics published “Monitoring Stem Cell Research” in 2004. This report was written in response to President Bush’s comments regarding research of human stem cells on August 9, 2001. President Bush announced that he was going to make federal funding available for research that involved existing lines of stem cells that came from embryos. He is the first president to provide any type of financial support for the research of human stem cells. A Council was created with people who are educated in the field of stem cells to help monitor the research and to recommend guidelines and consider the ethical consequences that this research could create. This report is an “update” given by the President’s Council in January of 2004 to make the public aware of the significant developments in the science and medical aspects of stem cell research. It also describes the ethical, legal and political implications that stem cell research may create. However, since the research is still in its beginning stages, this “update” does not describe a complete or definitive study of stem cells nor does it provide specific guidelines or regulations. This is a report that is suppose to help the President, Congress and general public make better-informed decisions as to the direction that we should go with stem cells.
I think that stem cell research has advanced in so many ways, with all the discoveries being made, and the new possibilities being explored. Although it still remains unethical because embryonic cells are one of the sources of stem cells. Why is somebody else’s life more valuable than someone else? Just because an embryo cannot talk, doesn’t mean, its life has any less value than a normal human being.
While many support embryonic stem cell research, some people oppose it say that it is an unethical practice. According to these people, embryonic stem cells require murdering a baby, human life is defined by rational beings, those capable of rational thought or a consciousness. In order to be rational one must have a consciousness, the ability to have thoughts and feel pain, to begin with. “For a fertilized egg, there is no consciousness and also no history of consciousness” (Stem). If abortions are allowed within the United States, why shouldn’t embryonic stem cell research be? Another claim against embryonic stem cell research is that it devalues human lives. “Some argue that researching embryonic stem cells will lead us into cloning technology” (Embryonic). While embryonic cloning is a possibility, we already possess the capabilities to clone so cloning is an invalid argument. The final argument against embryonic stem cell research is that there are alternatives, like adult stem cells. While adult stem cells may be utilized, they won’t be as effective. Embryonic stem cells are not only efficient but also renewable. They can be grown in a culture where as adult stem cells are extremely rare, if there are any. They can only be found in mature tissue. Isolating these extremely rare cells is challenging and has a high failure rate if not harvested correctly. “One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become” (Stem). Using adult stem cells we might never understand our development from conception ...
As technology stem cell research intensifies, so does the controversy about whether such scientific progress is moral. In the past millennium to today the present stem cell research has become a controversial topic across the world. Stem cells are unspecialized cells that have unique regenerative abilities, allowing them to divide into specialized cell types. Understanding why these processes occur is essential to curing disease. Critics of stem cell research argue that the extraction of embryonic stem cells involves destroying an early embryo, equating the act of killing a human. Although stem cell research is a highly controversial topic, it is compulsory to continue stem cell research within ethical boundaries for the benefit of mankind.
Due to public awareness of science, people started realise that the stem cells have the potential in developing cell-based therapies for many uncured diseases. Objectors claimed that it is morally wrong for the government to advocate stem cell research because the research demands embryos’ destruction (National Bioethics Advisory Committee [NBAC], 1999, as cited in Nisbet, 2004).’’It’s immoral that hundreds of thousands of embryos are discarded yearly instead of used to research cures for human suffering.” (Gilbert, 2008).In 2001, President George W. Bush made his stand to oppose the stem cell research by l...