Recent polls show that anywhere from 57% to 67% of Americans support stem cell research. Further studies found that one third of the people from that percentage support embryonic stem cell research (Langwith 2). Recently, stem cell research has become a prevalent and controversial topic among society. Large percentages hold human embryos to the highest moral status, compared to those who simply disregard them as objects of science. On April 1, 2008, my two-year-old nephew was diagnosed with cancer and underwent major surgery to remove a large tumor and one of his kidneys. He also went through fifty-two chemotherapy treatments and seven radiation treatments. Vivid memories of the trial my family suffered still haunts me today. I know full well the benefits stem cell research could have done for my nephew. While, I would do almost anything to take away the pain he suffered, I would not risk the potential life of another to treat him when other methods could be used just as effectively. Embryonic stem cell research ends a life to save a life. Is that morally acceptable? The practice of embryonic stem cell research and its public funding is morally wrong.
The many aspects of embryonic stem cell research prove complicated and intricate. Scientists today believe that the outcome of researching stem cells can provide further direction in discovering a way to treat certain life threatening diseases. By direct differentiation of cells, which is manipulating stem cell culture conditions to induce differentiation into a particular cell type, "They may be able to use the resulting, differentiated cells to treat certain diseases in the future by transplanting cells generated from human embryonic stem cells. Diseases such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes, traumatic spinal cord injury, Purkinje cell degeneration, Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, heart disease, and vision and hearing loss (Stem Cell Basics)."
Through further research, many people struggling with these diseases can find hope. Still, researchers conclude that embryonic stem cells are much more efficient because, “as long as the embryonic stem cells in culture are grown under certain conditions, they can remain undifferentiated (unspecialized)” (Stem Cell Basics), meaning the cells have not developed indefinitely therefore have the possibility of becoming whatever type of cell desired. The procedure in which these embryonic stem cells are made consists of the destruction of embryos: “Embryonic stem cells are extracted directly from an embryo before the embryo's cells begin to differentiate. At this stage the embryo is referred to as a ‘blastocyst’. There are about 100 cells in a blastocyst, a very large percentage of which are stem cells” (“Pros and Cons”). Many believe that during this process, the destruction of the embryo is equivalent to the killing of a human life. Heated arguments have developed due to the contradiction of people’s views and the intensity of the possible outcomes. Those who interpret that human life begins at conception strongly disagree with the aspect of stem cell research, compared to the many advocates who believe that the embryo is not yet human. Aspects such as funding are questioned due to the ongoing controversy.
Whether money comes from the federal government or private local donators, funding of embryonic stem cell research leads to heated debates. State governments have already provided large amounts of money to advance stem cell research, while encouraging the federal government to become more involved in funding these advances. Sam Berger, journalist and activist for stem cell research declares, “The national government should heed the example set in the states and modernize our stem cell policy to pursue life-saving cures and strengthen American competitiveness more aggressively” (1). The national government has been hindered due to altering views of the leaders present in the government and has been unable to efficiently fund stem cell research. Government officials have not been heavily involved or a part of the stem cell research controversy. They have mostly been straddling the boundary lines rather engaging in a certain side. Contrary to previous leaders, President Obama has recently chosen to further fund stem cell research in hope of gaining supporters and ratings. He signed an executive order that will allow federal funding to contribute to embryonic stem cell research. Additionally, “many researchers will not be content to use only so-called ‘surplus’ embryos, they will demand support for the creation and destruction of human embryos just for research, through human cloning and other methods” (Becker 1). Obama’s decision was based on his own personal view and desire to please his supporters. Obama recruited many supporters in the most recent election and, “The laboratories of the states have been as effective demonstrating the public support for this research as scientific labs have been proving its tremendous medical potential. In the recent election, the silent majority of stem cell supporters made their voice heard loud and clear” (Berger 2). Therefore, by electing President Obama, funding from stem cell research has become inevitable. The abundance of those in favor of embryonic stem cell research on some occasions significantly outweighs those against it.
Advocates for embryonic stem cell research provide arguments containing possible life changing outcomes. They strongly believe that it is more valuable to save the lives of people suffering from serious diseases rather than protect the lives of the unborn embryos. David Holcberg, strong advocate for the advancement of embryonic stem cell research, declares, “they are brazenly willing to force countless human beings to suffer and die for lack of treatments, so that clusters of cells remain untouched” (Holcberg 2). His perspective however shows a blatant disregard for the embryos potential becoming a human. Advocates for stem cell research neglect that these embryos are potential human beings. Additionally, ethical questions addressed include, “should we sacrifice a human life for the remote possibility of a medical cure for someone else” (Becker 1). Supporters of embryonic stem cell research strongly believe that the embryos future life does not matter as much as, those suffering now. All in all, these people have a strong disrespect for the embryos being researched. They believe embryos hold no rights and rather should be considered science. One supporter states, “Rights exist to protect and further human life. Rights enable individual men to think, act, produce and trade, live and love in freedom. The principle of rights is utterly inapplicable to tiny, pre-human clusters of cells that are incapable of such actions” (Holcberg 2). They clearly believe that the embryos do not deserve human rights. Rather in stages of development, the fetus “begins to take on added moral worth and gains added respect and rights; arguing that a sperm or a collection of cells in a Petri dish are morally equivalent to a living person, or even a developing fetus, fails to recognize the emergent character of human life and personhood” (Langwith 2). The embryo, not being recognized as a human being, is granted no rights and fails to be treated with respect. The so-called bundle of cells, sooner or later develops into a fetus and then a baby, therefore, there is no difference between a bunch of cells and a potential human being. The views of the advocates prove to stir some controversy with the ethical questions it arouses.
Despite the positive outcomes embryonic stem cell research embraces, it also comes with a harsh cost and overlooked numerous problems. Embryonic Stem Cell Research requires the destruction of embryos to maintain outcomes. Some believe this directly parallels to murder. Scientists are destroying one life in order to save another. The main controversy lies in deciding whether the cause is just. Often the subject of abortion arises when discussing the ethical issues of stem cell research. Veronica Werner, political advisor, said, “most legislators are against abortion but for embryonic stem cell research. To me, it doesn’t make any sense” (Newton 1). Rather, being for stem cell research, but against abortions contradicts itself. Abortion and stem cell research coincide closely that it doesn’t make sense to accept one but discard the other. Both disregard a potential human life. Other ethical issues arise when digging into the research of stem cells. Scientists proclaim the certainty of the outcomes produced from these stem cells. In reality, when tested, “mice treated for Parkinson’s with embryonic stem cells have died from brain tumors in as much as twenty percent of cases. Also, embryonic stem cells stored over time have been shown to create the type of chromosomal anomalies that create cancer cells” (“Pros and Cons”). No definite proof stands that these stem cells will actually work and treat life-threatening diseases, and according to tests it cannot be certain that using stem cells is safe. Therefore, one cannot be comfortable investing substantial time and money into researching something so uncertain. To waste so many lives in order to test a theory seems to consequential, as potential lives are lost to research. Alternative solutions to embryonic stem cell research stimulate, such as only using adult stem cells or cells derived from the umbilical cord after a pregnancy. Many lives could be saved by using these alternatives compared to those from embryos.
Even with the first hand suffering my family has experienced, the ethical and moral boundaries embryonic stem cell research crosses does not make it acceptable. The suffering my two-year-old nephew has to endure is difficult and painful to watch, I would not risk the life of another in order to ease his pain. Other methods are available to achieve such things. Stem cell research could have helped his little body significantly in his long journey fighting against cancer. “In the treatment of cancer, cells destroyed by radiation or chemotherapy can be replaced with new healthy stem cells that adapt to the affected area, whether it be part of the brain, heart, liver, lungs” (“Pros and Cons”) or in his case the kidney, possibly protecting him from the harsh side effects from chemo and radiation. Embryos deserve full rights as a human and should not be regarded as less than that. They are more than a tool of research and deserve to be treated as much more. Acknowledging and becoming aware of the issues with embryonic stem cell research proves substantial and beneficial. Ongoing attempts to provoke and expand research are abundant. People must be willing to stand up for what they believe in and make a difference. If enough people make their problem with stem cell research clear to the government leaders and to the world, change could occur and voices heard. People can change view and opinions if they try. So, if against embryonic stem cell research, are you doing anything about it?
Works Cited
Becker, Daniel. "Life Far Too Precious to Exploit." 10 Mar. 2009. Proquest. 1 Mar. 2009. http://proquest.umi.com.
Berger, Sam. "Stem Cell Research Should Be Federally Funded." 2007. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 02 Apr. 2009. http://find.galegroup.com.
Holcberg, David, and Alex Epstein. "Banning Stem Cell Research Violates Human Rights." 2007. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 11 Mar. 2009. http://find.galegroup.com.
Langwith, Jacqueline. "Destroying Embryos in Order to Obtain Stem Cells is Not Immoral." 2007. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. 11 Mar. 2009 http://find.galegroup.com.
Newton, Ken, and St. Joseph News. "Mixed Reviews Follow Stem Cell Order." 10 Mar. 2009. Proquest. 11 Mar. 2009 http://proquest.umi.com.
"Pros and Cons of Stem Cell Research." 1 Apr. 2009 http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org.
"Stem Cell Basics." National Institute of Health. 1 Apr. 2009 http://stemcells.nih.gov.
No comments:
Post a Comment