Embryonic Stem Cell Research is Morally and Medically Ethical Essay

Introduction Issue ( Background)Science and technology redeem opened umteen doors of progress in all atomic number 18as of business. On such(prenominal) atomic number 18a far exceeds mere business and industry and touches upon gracious invigoration itself. The aesculapian community has reached a point where it can quite by chance create new and healthy cellular telephonephones and electric organs to replace those that are damaged. This sue is made possible through embryotic infrastructure cell search (ESCR).Embryonic floor cells, as suggested by the name are particular(a)cted from embryos that reserve been fertilized in a laboratory setting for make use of by stereotypic couples and then, for what constantly discernment, are donated for research. These cells are about five days old ( arrest Cell Basics). The cells are then developed and grown in a purification medium and shipped to different laboratories for further research. These stem cells are finicky be cause they can be converted through genetic manipulation to be any type of cell desired.To generate cultures of particular(prenominal) types of incompatibleiated cells boldness muscle cells, blood cells, or nerve cells, for examplescientists try to avow the differentiation of embryonic stem cells. They change the chemical composition of the culture medium, alter the surface of the culture dish, or modify the cells by inserting specific genes (Stem Cell Basics). The benefit of this exploit is that these new healthy cells can be use to replace defective or diseased cells in individuals, in effect curing them of received ailments. Conflict, c. Stance and d. EnthymemeThe controversy with this particular social function stems from the fact that extracting these cells effectively kills the developing embryo, called at this stage a zygote. Those who deal that these cells constitute a world being, liken the process of extracting stem cells to stillbirth and murder (Robinson). Those that do non believe this way see the major aesculapian benefits as outweighing the death of an unwanted and unused zygote. Most of the arguments against ESCR are phantasmal in nature plot of land those that favor it are avocation pragmatic and realistic processes. In light of the medically in priceless nurture and hope it provides, embryonic stem cell research should legally anticipate with full funding from the federal administration. II. Grounds Even as stress has turned toward bragging(a) stem cell research, ESCR remains the most valuable and efficient way of utilizing stem cells for medical purposes. In 2005, the United earth announced that it was considering opening a stem cell bank development embryonic stem cells. Its research team at the University of Cambridge found that moreover 150 human embryos would be needed to created genetic material for well-nigh two-thirds of the population. The bank hopes to use these cells to replace diseased or damaged create fro m raw stuff in conditions such as diabetes and neurodegenerative disorders (Lita).Embryonic stem cells can function wield neurological disorders such as Parkinsons and endocrinal disorders such as diabetes. Embryonic stem cells can be trans traffic patterned into dopamine-producing neurons because these stem cells can be transformed into virtually any body cell including nerve cells and pancreatic cells. These cells can then begin producing dopamine or insulin as the case may be. (Kennell).Victims of spinal cord injuries may short be able to regain labor control as the dissolving agent of ESCR. Preliminary research shows that it is possible to train embryonic stem cells to fabricate neuro-motor pathways. Douglas Kerr, M.D., Ph.D. of Johns Hopkins University nones that This is proof of the principle that we can recapture what happens in early stages of motor neuron development and use that to repair damaged nervous systems (Embryonic Stem Cells remedy Latent Motor Nerve).III. WarrantDespite its proven medical capabilities and hope for more opposite medical uses, ESCR has found virulent resistivity from conservatives and the religious community. Their arguments hinge on the use of a living human being as fodder for medical experimentation. These arguments are suspect, redden flawed, for few(prenominal) reasons, both philosophical and biological. Generally speaking, the more practical and pragmatic medical argument must be valued over the religious beliefs of some.First, many will argue for the analogy between ESCR and murder. Many differences exist. As verbalize earlier, the zygote in question is yet five days old. In no way could this particular cluster of cells give life-time at this point only the authorization for life, which is basically the case whenever a charr and a man have intercourse. Lawyers from the National Institute of Health harmonize, noting that stem cells are incapable of growing into a complete person. They may be coaxed to develop into nerve cells or heart cells. But, at most, they can cash in ones chips an organ, not a complete living person.They cannot be considered a form of human life, even within the definition of pro-life supporters (Robinson). Doctors even carry biological explanations for this conclusion Human embryos are defined as human organisms derived by impregnation from one or more gametes or diploid cells. Pluripotent stem cells are specialized subpopulation of cells capable of developing into most (ectoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm), besides not all, human tissue and may be derived from human embryos (Chesney). Medically, even the cells are not the same.However, the zygotes are being stored indefinitely at in-vitro grooming clinics. For example, in the United States are over 350 natality clinics that offer the in-vitro fertilization process. When a women submits herself to the procedure, about 25 ova are removed from her body and fertilized with her conserves (or other donors ) sperm. Only 2-4 of the embryos are used in the fertilization procedure and the rest are frozen in liquifiable nitrogen to save for later use. Generally, these remaining 20 or so embryos stay in the clinic indefinitely. Few couples use them all, and even fewer agree to donate them to other infertile couples.Many embryos die due to changes in temperature or movement, and some clinics even throw the excess embryos away or use them in training staff (Robinson). The birth control anovulatory drug blocks a fertilized ovum from implanting as does an intrauterine device (IUD). These two devices, on with discarding the embryos or using them for training, also affect the potential for life exclusively are not so reviled. Moreover, the embryos owners must always give have to use these embryos for research nobody is tricked during this process (Robinson). Basically, if these cells are not used for ESCR, they will ultimately be used for nothing.Second, many opponents argue that liberal s tem cell research (ASCR) could replace ESCR and save the embryos. This is not nevertheless the case, if it ever will be. First of all, the nature of the stem cells are different in adults and in embryos. Embryonic stem cells are more elastic and can become virtually any cell of any organ or tissue in the body. Adult stem cells are very much more limited and cannot even be found in many organs or tissues in the body.Moreover, adult stems cells are limited in number, even considered minute in quantity and are very operose to identify. Embryonic stem cells are easy to identify and exist in large, usable numbers. Most importantly, embryonic stem cells are virtually blank, make them easy to manipulate into other tissues. Adult stem cells can contain genetic defects or DNA errors caused by replication or scene to toxins (Cohen).ESCR has been the focus of scientist for nearly two decades while ASCR has just begun to get some notice. Because of the emergence of ASCR, the opponents wan t to completely ban ESCR, not infrastanding that it is the reason that ASCR is even possible. However, because of the religious issues, ASCR is being forced into the limelight while ESCR has wooly-minded funding.As a result, Dr. Helen Blau, ironically an adult stem cell researcher at the Stanford University, argues that she feels strongly we need embryonic stem cells. The answers are not just going to come from the adult stem cells and it would be passing short-sighted to shift completely to just adult stem cells (Cohen). While adult stem cells may provide promise in the future, their use in the present is simply not as lucrative or bright as those of embryonic stem cells at this point in time. financing and V. Conditions of rebuttalMost arguments in opposition to ESCR originate in the religious realm. Dr. Dr. David Prentice, professor of life selective informationrmations at Indiana State University and founder of Do No Harm, The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics n otes precisely this when he asserts, The subject of the debate really comes mow to the ethical question of whats the object lesson status of a human embryo. Is it a person or is it a piece of property? And obviously we have no consensus on that in this country and I think that means we should not use taxpayer cash in hand to fund this type of research (Cohen).Yet, historically, this religious realm, when mixed with federal forces, has been squelch in other instances. For example, removing the ten commandments from federal buildings, denying prayer in school, and overtake swearing under God to affirming under oath in courtyard proceedings are just a few of the ways that the government has attempted to separate the church and the state. Why is the religious conservative hitch allowed to proliferate here when it is not allowed to do so in other instances?Similarly, the force of this religious surge against ESCR is the loss of life. While the beginning bite of human life is hug ely debatable, does ESCR not also promote life? Lawyers and medical ethicists in favor of ESCR note that Stem cells have an large promise to benefit mankind to save lives and cure or treat diseases. This generates a very strong deterrent example imperative to explore their potential (Robinson).Similarly, the conservative and religious opposition seems to even contradict their own flavour by not voicing concern about in-vitro fertilization clinics in general. As noted above, clinics routinely destroy abandoned embryos by flushing them down drains, incinerating them, or exposing them to room temperature (Hall). Basically, unused, destroyed embryos number in the hundreds of thousands in fertility clinics across the country, but these clinics are not subjected to the political manipulation that ESCR is, which only uses a dozen or two embryos in the clinical setting.Furthermore, the parents of these embryos are never challenged. The donors get to decide the fate of their unused embry os. The choices are to leave behind them to the use of the clinic, to donate them or to destroy them. Dr. Carl Herbert, president of the San Francisco Fertility Centers, notes that while this loss may seem harsh, it simply mimics the natural reproductive cycle.He points out that Out of all the embryos created by sexual intercourse, roughly 3 out of 4 do not last long plenty to produce a baby. About half of the fertilized eggs are disjointed even before the woman misses her first period following whim (Hall). Dr. Marcelle Cedars, a fertility specialist at the University of California at San Franciscos IVF clinic agrees. He argues that it is unrealistic to expect technology to do much meliorate at preserving the lives of early-stage embryos. Human reproduction is a very inefficient process and it is difficult to afford a higher status to embryos than nature does (Hall). qualifierOf course nobody wants to believe that a promising medical science field could be corrupt or greedy. Even ESCR should operate under certain moral guidelines. In no way should an embryo ever be used in any way except by that to which its donor consents. In addition, donors should not create embryos for the sheer purpose to transmit them to clinics, as the process should result as a by-product of extra embryos create for potential implantation and not create any extra embryos not for that purpose. Finally, tricking or deceiving individuals into donating embryos or withholding information about their use would also be morally wrong.VII. ConclusionESCR is not the enemy of the moral fiber of the United States. It is a medically promising procedure that does not violate any right to life laws. Religious opposition to certain issues will always exist, but in recent history, it has not been allowed in interfere with federal political, social or educational decision-making. Clearly other possibilities and alternatives to ESCR may arise, but until these options are as viable as ESCR, they should not be allowed to interfere with the medical promise of this type of research.Works CitedChesney, Russell et al. American Academy of pediatrics, Human Embryo Research Committee on Pediatric Research and Committee on Bioethics. Pediatrics 108 (3), 3 Sept. 2001 813-816. Retrieved 1 April 2008 from http//aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/ mental object/full/pediatrics108/3/813Cohen, Elizabeth. Adult stem cells or embryonic? Scientists differ. CNN.com/Health. 10 August 2001. Retrieved 1 April 2008 from http//archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/08/09/stem.cell.alternative/Embryonic Stem Cells Repair Latent Motor Nerve. Science Daily. 28 June 2006. Retrieved 1 April 2008 from http//stemcell.taragana.net/archive/embryonic-stem-cells-repair-latent- motor-nerve/Hall, Carl T. The bury embryo Fertility clinics must store or destroy the supernumerary that is part of the process. SF Gate News. 20 Aug. 2001. at http//www.sfgate.com/Kennell, David. The promise of stem cell research. Peopl es Weekly World Newspapers. 29 July 2006. Retrieved 1 April 2006 from http//www.pww.org/ hold/articleview/9582/1/332Lita, Ana. Embryonic Stem Cell Research New Developments and Controversies. MedBioWorld. 10 October 2006. Retrieved 1 April 2008 from http//www.medbioworld.com/postgenomics_blog/?p=138Robinson, B.A. Human Stem Cells Ethical Concerns. Religious Tolerance. 17 Oct. 2002. Retrieved 1 April 2008 from http//www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem2.htmStem Cell Basics. The National Institutes of Health. 20 Feb. 2008. Retrieved 1 April 2008 from http//stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp