Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The ethical questions of stem cell research reflection paper
The ethical questions of stem cell research reflection paper
The ethical dilemma behind embryonic stem cells
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Although some find embryonic stem cells unethical, supporting embryonic stem cell research will benefit humankind in many aspects.
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 ...
... middle of paper ...
...n years. Matching a human heart to a particular person is difficult. Most families describe the hardest part of the heart replacement procedure to be the wait for a matching heart. Some people never find one and have to accept that their child will be outlived by them. People are suffering and dying. If embryonic stem cells were researched more, healing damaged hearts would be easier and more effective. Patients and families wouldn’t have to wait months or years to receive a heat to help their children, mothers, sisters, or brothers.
We have the ability and obligation to help countless people. As mankind we have an obligation to help others in need. Supporting embryonic stem cell research can and will benefit man kind in countless ways from curing disease stricken men and women all over the world to helping us understand with great depth on how our cells function.
A person's individuality begins at conception and develops throughout life. These natural developments can now be changed through genetically engineering a human embryo. Through this process, gender, eye and hair color, height, medical disorders, and many more qualities can be changed. I believe genetically engineering a human embryo is corrupt because it is morally unacceptable, violates the child's rights, and creates an even more divided society.
Brendan Maher, in his article “How to Build a Heart” discusses doctor’s and engineer’s research and experimentation into the field of regenerative medicine. Maher talks about several different researchers in this fields. One is Doris Taylor, the director of regenerative medicine at the Texas Heart Institute in Houston. Her job includes harvesting organs such as hearts and lungs and re-engineering them starting with the cells. She attempts to bring the back to life in order to be used for people who are on transplant waiting lists. She hopes to be able to make the number of people waiting for transplants diminish with her research but it is a very difficult process. Maher says that researchers have had some successes when it comes to rebuilding organs but only with simples ones such as a bladder. A heart is much more complicated and requires many more cells to do all the functions it needs to. New organs have to be able to do several things in order for them to be used in humans that are still alive. They need to be sterile, able to grow, able to repair themselves, and work. Taylor has led some of the first successful experiments to build rat hearts and is hopeful of a good outcome with tissue rebuilding and engineering. Scientists have been able to make beating heart cells in a petri dish but the main issue now is developing a scaffold for these cells so that they can form in three dimension. Harold Ott, a surgeon from Massachusetts General Hospital and studied under Taylor, has a method that he developed while training. Detergent is pumped into a glass chamber where a heart is suspended and this detergent strips away everything except a layer of collagen, laminins, and other proteins. The hard part according to Ott is making s...
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.
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.
One of the most heated political battles in the United States in recent years has been over the morality of embryonic stem cell research. The embryonic stem cell debate has polarized the country into those who argue that such research holds promises of ending a great deal of human suffering and others who condemn such research as involving the abortion of a potential human life. If any answer to the ethical debate surrounding this particular aspect of stem cell research exists, it is a hazy one at best. The question facing many scientists and policymakers involved in embryonic stem cell research is, which is more valuable – the life of a human suffering from a potentially fatal illness or injury, or the life of human at one week of development? While many argue that embryonic stem cell research holds the potential of developing cures for a number of illnesses that affect many individuals, such research is performed at the cost of destroying a life and should therefore not be pursued.
Benefits of stem cell research can be overwhelming. Today, millions of people around the world suffer from incurable diseases. Stem cell research could help the scientific community find a breakthrough in developing a cure. By observing stem cells develop into mature human tissue, scientists can better understand how embryos develop. “Normal” human development can be recorded. This knowledge can be used to help prevent birth defects, for instance.
By applying research from cloning normal cells to cloning stem cells, a wider range of people can be helped, and the cost of procedures will be lowered. Scientific research into cloning will allow doctors study how to safely replicate
From the discussion above it is very clear that there are different opinions on the pros and cons of stem cell research. Based on the recent researches, scientists have the capability to work out the alternatives for embryonic stem cell research. And the usefulness compare to embryonic stem cell remains unknown. Undeniably, the stem cell research issue has its most complex parts to be resolved and surmounted. But perhaps we can disclose the way to carry out stem cell research with the balance of bioethics and most importantly, do no harm for humankind one day.
Stem cells offer exciting promise for future therapies, but significant technical hurdles remain that will only be overcome through years of intensive research. Stem Cells have the incredible potential to develop into many different cell types in the body during early life and growth. Scientists primarily work with two kinds of stem cells from animals and humans. The embryonic stem cells and the non-embryonic stem cells. Stem cells are the cells from which all other cells originate. In a human embryo, a large portion of the embryo’s cells are stem cells. These stem cells can be used for cell-based therapies. Cell-Based therapies are treatments in which stem cells are induced to differentiate into the specific cell type required to repair damaged or destroyed cells or tissues. Stem cells are versatile and offer the possibility to treat a number of diseases including Alzheimer’s, stroke, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc. The problem is that for the process of embryonic stem cell research and embryo will be destroyed if used. This raises a moral issue and questions of whether stem cell research is unethical or not.
Embryonic stem cell research is wrong. When using embryos in research, the embryo is manipulated to be anything scientists need it to be. But, scientists dispute the fact that the parts of the embryo they use could also grow into a fetus. When harvesting the stem cells of an embryo, the destruction of the blastocysts, “the blastula of the mammalian embryo, consisting of an inner cell mass, a cavity, and an outer layer, the trophoblast” (Dictionary.com), must occur. This kills the embryo because taking away the stem cells strips the organism of the ability to develop. The use of live embryos in research is wrong because it takes an innocent life.
Embryonic stem cell research occurs when stem cells from fertilized embryos are used as research for treating abnormalities and diseases among humans, by dissecting them and therefore killing the human soul in the embryo. It permanently destroys a living human embryo, sacrificing that precious life worth so much more than people realize. Nobody should be a human sacrifice. Every human life is precious, and from the second of conception, that embryo is a living human being. What is even more heartbreaking is that embryonic stem cell research isn’t necessary, yet it is still conducted. The reason why it isn’t necessary isn’t only because it is unethical, but also because conducting research on adult or cord stem cells, have the same effect as the embryonic stem cells. The difference between conducting research on adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells is that one doesn’t result in the death of an innocent and voiceless life. In every way, embryonic stem cell research is horrible and unethical and no human life should be sacrificed, for in fact, human life begins at the moment of conception. There are other options to find a cure for diseases and disabilities- like using adult stem cell research. Also, scientists have found that another way to conduct stem cell research without killing embryonic infants; which is by using immobilized cord stem cells. Doctors take the immobilized cord stem cells from the umbilical cord after the baby is born, and those stem cells can be used in the same way embryonic stem cells are used. Except when immobilized cord stem cells or adult stem cells are taken, no human life is killed in the process. And whenever there is the option to choose between sacrificing innocent human life and trying to prese...
Stem cells are currently being studied to potentially cure or prevent diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer’s. Obtaining stem cells from abortion is unethical compared to the stem cells obtained from IVF, however do the many medical benefits outweigh the beliefs of using aborted fetuses? The controversial topic of abortion and stem cell research is one that can be looked at in many different ways. The current trials and studies involving stem cells are so beneficial to so many people who are suffering from sometimes life threatening diseases. To give a little background into this research; human embryonic stem cells are the cells that are the building blocks of all tissues throughout the human body. The cells are from human embryos which can be obtained from fertility clinics in which they would be the left overs from assisted reproduction such as in vitro fertilization or (IVF). The ethical dilemma with using stem cells however is that harvesting the cells from a living human would cause destruction or death of the embryo.
The worst part is this experiment with charitable intentions can have many risks involved. Stem cell research is one of science’s biggest mistakes and is not as perfect as it seems to be. For embryonic stem cells specifically, stem
Many patients in hospitals are waiting for transplants and many of them are dying because they are not receiving the needed organs. To solve this problem, scientists have been using embryonic stem cells to produce organs or tissues to repair or replace damaged ones (Human Cloning). Skin for burn victims, brain cells for the brain damaged, hearts, lungs, livers, and kidneys can all be produced. By combining the technology of stem cell research and human cloning, it will be possible to produce the needed tissues and organs for patients in desperate need of a transplant (Human Cloning). The waiting list for transplants will become a lot shorter and a lot less people will have to suffer and die just because they are in great need of a transplant....
Engineering Ethics of Public Information Information is one of the most powerful commodities of modern humans. In his 2007 Nobel Prize acceptance speech, R. K. Pachauri described public knowledge and information as critical for affecting regulatory policy and legislation. Although Pachauri was describing the work of the IPCC and Al Gore, this idea that the presentation of technical information to the community can greatly impact the future of humanity is also relevant when considering the stem cell research. Specifically, Clara Bartlett outlines a scenario where, in the context of a social gathering, a genetic engineer has heard misinformation from opposite sides of the stem cell research debate; both individuals express an opinion backed