“The Science, Policy, and Ethics of Stem Cell Research.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online, Vol.14. Supplement 1. (2007): 130-136. Print. Sullivan, Dr. Dennis M., Costerisan, Aaron.
Stem Cell Research This research paper will focus on stem cell research and the ethical issues that are attributed to this subject. This topic will be narrowed down to Embryonic Stem Cell research in that there is a great debate going on how to conduct this research ethically. The importance of embryo stem cell research is that the research could help save lives and also the debate is that it is morally wrong to kill an embryo due to the fact it still a living organism. The issue with embryo stem cell research is that an embryo is a living being and should not be used for research, because then the embryo would not be allowed to develop into the living form it is meant to be. This issue is being debated in the government and other political aspects as to whether the research should be done.
Many of the criticisms directed towards the advent of stem cell research have centered on the source of the most scientifically useful types of stem cells—pre-implantation human embryos. Unfortunately, harvesting embryonic stem cells typically results in the destruction of the embryo from which they are harvested, which gives rise to a moral dilemma: is it ethically acceptable to destroy an embryo’s potential to life? Those who are against human embryonic stem cell research will answer you with an emphatic “no”; they usually argue much like pro-lifers—“…human embryos have an equal standing to all living persons… and destroying them is akin to murder” (Hyuu 71). However, to halt stem cell research solely because an embryo has the potential to become full-fledged life is to forgo the possibility of saving a plethora of actual living human beings. I will argue that the opposition of embryonic stem cell research is counterintuitive and detrimental to society as a whole because it is vital to further human advancement in the fields of science and medicine, and that neglecting to reap the benefits of stem cell research can actually cost more lives than it saves.
Is it ethical to kill a being classified in biological terms as a life form for the potential advancement of science? Is an embryo even worthy of rights if it can’t think, feel, or communicate? Or do the positives of embryonic stem cell research so far outweigh the negatives that the sacrifice is minimal? Adversaries of embryonic research explain that it is absolutely unethical, while supporters argue that this research is essential to our medical future. There may never be one right answer.
There are limits and using embryonic stem cells for research purposes requires the destruction of the human embryo, and putting an end to potential human life crosses the line. Life starts at conception, and all life started with these living cells. Another reason relevant to the lack of consensus is the ... ... middle of paper ... ... to cure, we can achieve the same goal of freeing people from cancer, and other diseases in an ethical, morally sound procedure by using adult stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells for research. I am informed of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, and your recent addition of opening up federal funding for stem cell research, and acknowledge that embryos cannot be lawfully destroyed and the use of embryonic stem cell lines from prior to 2009. I propose to stop federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and research with the use of adult stem cells should be federally funded and furthered.
The future of revolutionizing medical treatment and it’s potentials are vast espially in finding ways to genetically modify people that may (deem) impossible, while possibly treating diseases such as Alzymers, Perkysings, heart and lung diseases, and the list expands. So why the controversy of its predictated affects, revolutionsary and astonishing? The bikker controversy to its revolutionary impacts are mainly instigated by the “pro-life” organization who argue that it is not worth losing innocent life, or in this case find it unscrupulous to kill innocent embroys who have yet to experience the blessings of life. Using the tissue lining of... ... middle of paper ... ... However, the main issue still stands whether the killing of an embryo is a necessity in order to obtain stem cells.
Should Stem Cell Research be prohibited? The ongoing bioethical controversy of stem cells research has been debated in political arenas across the world. As with any debate there are two sides to the issue. Scientific researchers want to expand their research into emerging fields like stem cell research in hopes of bettering medicine for the future. Human right activists and some religious groups are against this type of research because the harvesting of stem cells from embryos is seen as the destruction of human life.
But the conscience asks is it right?” This essay is about animal to human organ transplants otherwise known as Xenotransplants. Even though this procedure is meant to save lives, it is giving rise to metaphoric Frankenstein’s monsters and putting some aspects of the Human Race at risk. This essay will discuss diseases that can jump species and cause catastrophic dangers for humans such as Ebola and AIDS which the human population has no resistance towards. I will also explore the different religious view points on Xenotransplantation. I believe it is important to first explain what this procedure is about and how safe it is, keeping in mind the fact that four thousand people die each year waiting for human organs.
Embryonic stem cell research is so controversial because society is judging whether or not taking stem cells from days old embryos is immoral, or if doctors should look past the cons and do what is necessary to eventually preserve many lives. While stem cell research has received an abundance of support from people who believe it has the potential to treat and remedy disease, many others oppose embryonic stem cell research because it ultimately causes the destruction of an embryo, what they consider to be a human life. Which brings on the question, when does life begin. The answer is opinionated. Many people disagree on when life begins; some people believe that an embryo is a human and some believe that they are not human until the first heartbeat.
The case against cloning, including therapeutic cloning, has mainly been argued on grounds of morality. Opponents have warned that creating embryos through cloning for the purpose of research (with the full intention of destroying them later) is a breathtakingly radical enterprise. For the first time in history, human lives will be created for the explicit purpose of exploitation. Such considerations have led activist Jeremy Rifkin to opine that the cloning debate is to the 21st century what the slavery debate was to the 19th. Unfortunately, we live in a time of widespread and extreme non-judgmentalism, an era when many Americans simply do not respond to moral arguments in public policy debates.