Student Essay
Using the Leftovers:
The Ethical Debate Surrounding Stem Cell Research
For years there has been an ethical debate over research done on stem cells. Stem cells “are early, ‘universal’ cells with the potential to form virtually any somatic cell in the human body” (Fossel & Juengst). Stem cells can be obtained through an embryo or an adult; however, “embryonic {stem cells} actually appear to be better” (CNN). Embryonic stem cells can be obtained in one of two ways. The first way is by using the leftover embryos from In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) clinics. The other way is through aborted fetuses. Before the U.S. Congress imposed a ban on the funding for stem cell research (60), most stem cells were obtained through IVF clinics. However, there was a problem with this. The embryos from the IVF clinics were alive, until the stem cell lines were removed, whence they perished. Hence, there are many like Francis Fukuyama, author of Our Posthuman Future, who oppose stem cell research. While some believe it is not ethical to kill an embryo in the name of science, others believe that it will cause “posthuman” problems down the road. On the other side, there are those like me who believe that stem cell research is an ethical practice for a variety of reasons.
Many of those who oppose stem cell research “regard the fertilized egg and early embryo as a person, or human subject, with rights and interests” (Friedrich). Some who are pro-research like “John A. Robertson, JD, a professor at the University Of Texas School Of Law”, abide by the idea that “early embryo(s) lack the capacity to be born, lack the capacity to have interests and therefore, destroying it to get cells does not harm it or wrong it in any way” (Friedrich). I, on the other hand, am willing to concede to the other side that the embryo is a living entity. However, this does not make the research of the embryo unjust. “Stem cells are taken from a human embryo, typically at about 5 days after conception.” Such action is “referred to as {the obtainment of the} blastocyst” (Times of Daniel). Arguably, a blastocyst, although living, could hardly be deemed a Human Being. A blastocyst does not have the capability to walk, talk, touch, smell, or feel. It does not have any concept of death or for that matter, life. Additionally, stem cells own the ability to regenerate, indefinitely if need be. Therefore, if stem cells are continually regenerated one could make up for those who died, and even create more than that! Indeed, an embryo’s death in the name of science is appropriate; especially when one takes into account that many are killed anyways.
IVF clinics have become all too popular for couples suffering from infertility. Therefore, many people create several fertilized eggs for storage at these clinics. Needless, to say there are several embryos which are leftover. While some of these are adopted by other couples, for the most part they are terminated, or used for research. Therefore, doesn’t the demise of extra embryos in the name of science seem more appealing, rather than in the name of excess? Regardless of one’s stance on this issue insofar, stem cell research is justifiable by means of uncertainty, advancement, and responsibility.
The future is an omnipresent uncertainty. Indeed, it is something that you simply know nothing about until you reach that moment. Likewise, such is the case with biotechnology. While many theories are being applied and experiments run, there is no accurate forecast for what is to come. All one can do is wonder and predict. Our society thrives on its advancement, and science has but a few times gotten in the way. Indeed, we continued on to make nuclear bombs, despite the danger it imposed. Although such a creation can and quite possibly will lead to our eventual demise, it was and still is created. Therefore, I deem it quite unfair that cures for diseases are being withheld from the populace. Perhaps the December 2000 JAMA article entitled “The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cells—Now and Forever, Cells Without End” described this situation best. In this article two scenarios are discussed which accurately depict the cost of preventing stem cell research. Consider the first, “A child dies of pneumonia in 1900 because there are no effective antibiotics. In the second, potentially in the near future, a child dies of pneumonia, because antibiotics—although effective—are legally restricted.” If there is a cure out there, waiting to be found, then why are we preventing it? What about all of the people who are suffering today from a disease that could have a cure, if they were allowed one? Who wants to bear that responsibility?
Indeed, the debate over stem cell research is a heated one, with good points on both sides. However, I remain strongly supportive of the benefits that can be gained from this research. Stem cell research is ethical, resourceful, and helpful. Hence, it is imperative that such research continues, as to give the future new hope and meaning to life.
Works Cited
Dooley,
Tomas P. “The Dilemma of Embryonic Stem Cell Research”.
Dr. Tom Dooley.com.
<http://www.drtomdooley.com/scr.html>
“Elizabeth Cohen: Ethics of
Stem Cell Research”. CNN.com/Health.
18 July 2001.12 Dec. 2002.
<http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/07/17/cohen.otsc/>.
Fossel,
Micheal & Juengst,
Eric. “The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cells—Now and
Forever, Cells Without End (Controversies)”. JAMA 284.24 (
Friedrich,
M.J. “Debating Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Research.” JAMA 284.6 (
Fukuyama,
Francis. Our Posthuman
Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution.
“Stem
Cell Research”. Times
of Daniel.
| Home | Syllabus | Assignments | Text | Instructor |
last revised: 12-18-02 by Eric Brenner, Skyline College, San Bruno,
CA
These materials are copyrighted but may be used for educational purposes if you inform and credit the author and cite the source as: LSCI 106 Online Research. All commercial rights are reserved. Send comments or suggestions to: Eric Brenner at brenner@smccd.net