An article published in the Genetics Sience Learning Center of the Department of Health Sciences of the Utah University, titled, The Stem Cell Debate: is it over? (2014), poses a question that I find very interesting, and that I would like to answer. Here is the question: “Should the laws that govern other types of pluripotent stem cells differ from those for hES cells? If so, what new legislation is needed?” As the National Institute of Health explains under Stem Cell Basics, there are three main types of stem cells: embryonic stem cells (hESCs), adult or somatic stem cells, and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs); it is well known that to this date hESCs offer the most possibilities. Stem Cell Research is a great thing because it opens the door of possibilities, but it also challenges our perception of the world and questions our beliefs in life. With stem cell research finding the cure to many diseases that have been incurable until now becomes a possible reality. Diseases such as Parkinson’s, sickle cell anemia, Alzheimer’s, Cancer, heart disease, to name a few, might in the not-so-far-away future become curable conditions. While there is a lot of work to do, I believe the federal and state governments are doing a good job working towards a better legislation regulating stem cells. In 2009, as President Barak Obama prepared to sign the lifting to the ban on stem cell research, he remarked, “There is no finish line in the work of science. The race is always with us – the urgent work of giving substance to hope and answering those many bedside prayers, of seeking a day when words like "terminal" and "incurable" are finally retired from our vocabulary”. One of the most recent legislations on this matter is the reauthoriza... ... middle of paper ... ... treat some bone, skin and corneal conditions (Nine Things to Know About Stem Cell Treatment,2015), however, according to the FDA website there are not yet any licensed stem cell treatments. I understand the concern about dehumanizing embryos, but by limiting any kind of stem cell research, we are also dehumanizing those who are desperate for a cure; like the little girl waiting for a heart transplant, or the young boy with a promising artistic career who saw his career frustrated due to Parkinson’s disease. The future looks very promising with all the bans to stem cell research being slowly removed. We are moving towards an era of great medical progress. The important thing to insure is that the general population, as well as the primary consumers for stem cells, to be adequately educated and extensively informed with factual information and clear legal guidance.
For the past few years stem cell research has been a widely debated topic; however, former President Clinton?s stance?allowing federal money to be spent on tightly controlled stem cell research?lead to intense debates over federal funding for stem cell research. There are four ways of obtaining stem cells, which are taken from embryos that are approximately one week old. They are using unwanted embryos from fertility clinics, embryos from aborted fetuses, cloned embryos, and embryos created for research purposes. Stem cells can also be taken out of adult bone marrow, but scientists do not think that adult stem cells hold as much medical potential. Conservatives are against federal funding for stem cell research because they feel that by doing such the government would be contributing to ?murder.? This idea is rooted in the religious beliefs, which include the belief that life begins at conception, held by conservatives. However, liberals support federal funding for the research of embryos because they question whether embryos are full human beings and believe the research could expedite potential medical breakthroughs.
Over the past decade scientist and the U.S government have been debating about funds for stem cell research (SCR), the amount spent depends on who is in office. The Democratic Party fully supports SCR, but the Republican Party somewhat opposes the concept of SCR, arfuing it violates the Christian principle of life. As a result, this topic is considered controversial, but also beneficial if allowed. Despite the controversy, SCR should be well funded for medicinal use, because blank stem cells (SC) can be used to regenerate bones and muscle tissue, they can be used to control or even reverse neurodegenerative disease, and because they can be used for therapeutic cloning.
" An Overview of Stem Cell Research | The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity."
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.
Stem cell research is a heavily debated topic that can stir trouble in even the tightest of Thanksgiving tables. The use cells found in the cells of embryos to replicate dead or dying cells is a truly baffling thought. To many, stem cell research has the potential to be Holy Grail of modern medicine. To many others, it is ultimately an unethical concept regardless of its capabilities. Due to how divided people are on the topic of stem cell research, its legality and acceptance are different everywhere. According to Utilitarianism, stem cell research should be permitted due to the amount of people it can save, however according to the Divine Command of Christianity, the means of collecting said stem cells are immoral and forbidden.
...ting embryos specifically for stem cell research should not be allowed. Continued stem cell research will benefit all of mankind with its promise of medical advances. Opponents’ concerns about destroying human life will be quelled because stem cells will be taken from already doomed embryos. The federal government will be able to regulate the research and ensure that it is lawfully conducted.
The conflict surrounding stem cell research is, with ethical consideration, whether it is a good or bad. The majority of Americans are advocates due to the possibilities of medical advancement, thus saving thousands of lives. Those in opposition believe that it is against
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.
Imagine that there is a cure for nearly every ailment that affects the human race. Imagine that you could help the terminally ill, put those you love out of pain, and cut the healing time of an enormous number of serious illnesses in half. Imagine a world in which pain and suffering would be nearly nonexistent, and the people you love can live safe from the fear of crippling injury. Now what if I told you that this utopia was a fast approaching reality? Everything from serious life threatening burns to lymphoma, AIDS, Alzheimer’s, Muscular Dystrophy, Parkinson’s Disease, Spinal Cord Injury, and Strokes could, in the very near future, be eliminated through the simple culturing and implementation of stem cell therapy . These diseases are no small component of the myriad of conditions that plagues the human race, and yet, the end for these horrible maladies could very well be in sight. Man has always sought to end suffering, largely without success, until now. the promise that stem cell therapy holds could completely change our world for the better. Already, stem cell therapy is being used to treat leukemia, immune disorders, hodgkins and non-hodgkins lymphoma, anemia and a profusion of other ailments. As you all know, this is no small accomplishment. One day i believe that we may look at alzheimer's and diabetes and other major illnesses much like we look at polio today, as a treatable illness. Right now, our research with stem cells is providing us with new light into how we look at and model disease, our ability to understand why we get sick and even to develop new drugs. In 2008, a researcher from the New York Stem Cell Foundation Laborato...
Monroe, Kristen, et al., eds. Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical and Political Issues. Los Angeles/Berkley: University of California Press, 2008. Print
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...
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 a 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.
This belief is wrong. Many countries including the United States have laws regarding embryonic stem cells. The United States has limits on when you can take embryos and there off course has to be consent from the donor of the stem cells. All these regulations are being met and the research is being done safely and in a way that always keeps safety as a first priority. New procedures and uses of stem cells also have to be deemed safe or the risks have to at least be shared before treatment can take place. These regulations make sure stem cells are being used in a safe way and that you know the facts about the way researchers are using
Anderson, Ryan. "Stem Cells: A Political History." First Things. First Things, November, 2008. Web. 10 Feb 2012.
Stem cell research should be allowed on adults but not on humans. Only allowed on humans who are willing to be a part of the stem cell research but no one should be used against their own will. Embryos should not be used for embryonic stem cell research. An embryo being used for their stem cells and then discarded devalues that human life. This follows along the same unethical issue as abortion. When stem cells are removed from human embryos, a unique individual dies. However, if abortion is legal in the state that this research is conducted than research may be conducted on only aborted fetuses. That would be an...