Stem Cell Research Persuasive Speech

Stem cell research holds the potential for many exciting treatments applicable to pernicious diseases; diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes and spinal injury, that cause a loss of function of or total loss of cells. Nonetheless, few other areas of science have generated such an intriguing premise. Unrelenting debate over which fundamental principle is given precedence: the duty to value a human life or the duty to alleviate suffering. In Oklahoma, a recent decision on this ethical dilemma put a complete ban on stem cell research altogether. The legislation creates a felon out of researchers and embryo donors involved in the process. To make a decision such as this one must be in the right mindset and ask the right questions

to effectively resolve this ‘dirty- hands problem.’ (Badaracco). Badaracco, a professor of business ethics at Harvard University, proposed four questions for analyzing right-vs-right dilemmas. The first question was “which course of action will do the most good and the least harm?” The second, “which alternative best serves others’ rights, including shareholders’ rights?” Third, “what plan can I live with, which is consistent with basic values and commitments?” Lastly, “which course of action is feasible in the world as it is?”
In the case of Oklahoma and embryonic stem cell research in general, one must first understand that the embryos used in stem cell research don’t grow in a woman’s uterus nor are they a fetus. They are most often obtained from in vitro fertilization clinics. The leftover eggs are donated by those who no longer wish to use them. They are an early stage embryo called a blastocyst that has yet to develop any recognizable human features or nervous system and are nearly invisible to the human eye. The blastocyst contains a cluster of approximately 200 pluripotent cells, meaning they have the potential to develop into almost any cell in the body; with proper laboratory work it can be used to develop into the cell wanted to study.
During the extraction of the stem cells the blastocyst is destroyed, bringing rise to the issue of the embryo’s ontological status. For those who believe the embryo has moral equivalence to a person, the extraction is comparable to harvesting organs from a baby in order for others to live. Even so, if embryos are not donated they are destined for persistent refrigeration or destruction, which in itself could then be considered mass murder. Moreover, at what stage does an embryo become a human being? From a biological standpoint an embryo is indeed “human life” as it is alive and human. Nevertheless, not every cell that’s human life would be considered inviolable, such as the cells making up one’s skin. As fertilization is a process, there’s no clear defining moment between conception and adulthood at which “person-hood” begins.

Which course of action will do the most good and the least harm?

Countless people die each year from the disease’s previously listed; all of whose lives are lost as a result of the disease not having cures or even effective treatments. Banning stem cell research hinders the extent of medical advancements like trying to drive a car without the fuel. As previously explained, the blastocyst is only a non-sentient creature, which is being ‘spared’ while a living being is sentenced to death. On the other hand, if embryonic stem cell research were allowed to move forward numerous people such as Stephen Hawking could be helped. Stephen Hawking is a sufferer of Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS for short, a motor neuron disease. ALS patients have a life expectancy of two years, meaning his many great accomplishments could have failed to see the light of day. He is also an advocate for stem cell research having previously been quoted saying:
“Stem Cell Research is the key to developing cures for degenerative conditions like Parkinson’s and motor neuron disease from which I and many others suffer.

The fact that the cells may come from embryos is not an objection, because the embryos are going to die anyways.”

Such should be taken with high regard as he is a man with unparalleled intelligence in the current field of theoretical physics and cosmology. His achievements and contributions to society are unprecedented and cannot being to compare to an embryo that is already doomed. Furthermore, people passed on the street each day could be affected such as the many grandparents falling victim to Alzheimer’s; a fatal neurological disorder where the death of brain cells causes memory loss and a steady cognitive decline.

By saving an embryo there is a slight chance of its use and the creation of a life that may generate considerable contributions to society. However, given the current knowledge of the aforementioned diseases, saving the people affected would create a far greater benefit to mankind than saving an embryo. Thus, if analyzed through utilitarianism, the majority can be helped through the allowance of embryonic stem cell

research.

Which alternative best serves others’ rights, including shareholders’ rights?

Each American has an undeniable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In a situation such as this, all three of these rights are being affected. The ban of stem cell research obstructs the right to liberty by placing an oppressive restriction on those stricken with a possibly curable or treatable disease. Moreover, although the right to life is thought to be violated through the destruction of a possible life, it also applies to those ailed by diseases that could be helped by stem cell research on top of infringing upon their right to the pursuit of happiness. Additionally, for most researchers, the pursuit of happiness includes the ability to pursue knowledge and their occupation. This addition allows the stakeholders with whose values are affected, to be divided up into three different groups. The first being the general public or American citizens. This includes those affected by the diseases, such as doctors or teachers, as well as the people who depend on services provided by them. Due to the direct affects from outcomes of stem cell research, most of this group of stakeholder is excited about the many possibilities that could emerge. Furthermore, the donor of the embryo is allowed to make a decision on whether or not her embryo is to be used. Therefore, she is not directly affected by a lifted ban on stem cell research. On account of the lack of public knowledge on the subject, the public is easily influenced by the media which often frames information in extremest views. The second group of stakeholders is the scientific community who are again, American citizens. Most researchers believe the benefits substantially outweigh the costs, which to them is nothing. The last group is the state and in this issue, the ethical decision maker. They are faced with the challenge of keeping to the electorates views if they wish to be re-elected. As a result, this group must take all three stakeholders’ values into consideration when making a decision.

What plan can I live with, which is consistent with basic values and commitments?
As there is no way of truly getting inside the states head, this question must be answered solely on what has been publicly announced.

The state government should be committed to the well being of their citizens. Their main concerns should entail the people’s rights, health and happiness not being transgressed. After several failed attempts, the vote in Oklahoma was almost unanimous. However, this decision was clearly not for the greater good of the state. Moreover, it undoubtedly reflects the state reps values and not the people; having previously stated, “he believes the destruction of human embryos amounts to murder and should be illegal.” He even knew “[t]he legislation [was] opposed by by many doctors and business groups.” If the state were to step out of personal biases and attempt to understand what is best for its’ citizens, they would then be able to make the most suitable

decision.

Which course of action is feasible in the world as it is?

Based on the answers to the previous three questions it can be deduced that the course of action that would allow for the greatest number of pleased people would be to lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research. This decision would do the most good and least harm by allowing the innumerable people stricken with diseases to receive extensive benefits from the research. With diseases such as Alzheimers, ALS and Parkinson's becoming more and more common, progress towards cures and treatments is essential. In order to proceed with the research however, proper education on the process would be required for some of the general public to understand that a human is not being harmed during embryonic cell extraction. Each group of stakeholders will be better off and violations to rights will be minimized.

Conclusion

Oklahoma's decision on the continual debate of embryonic stem cell research was misguided. With the answers too each of Badaracco’s questions in hand, it becomes clear such is true. The promises of an end to the ravages of many chronic diseases should in itself have been compelling enough to not have placed a ban. Furthermore, greater benefit is achieved through the addition of these treatments than protecting a non-sentient creature with only a slim chance at life. As well, more rights are being violated through this ban than without it. This decision would most accurately resolve the ethical dilemma being faced.