Stem Cell Success - Term Paper Example

Stem Cell Success The science of stem cell treatments does not refer to the creation of life, making ‘Frankenbabies.’ It is a new stage of exploration and growth that could be the forerunner of unprecedented cures and therapies. The present enthusiasm over prospective stem cell-produced remedies radiates from the new innovations of genetic biology. Though one cannot forecast the results from basic research, there is enough information available to suggest that a good deal of this enthusiasm is justified. This enthusiasm still is not shared by those of the religious right. This faction is opposed to embryonic stem cell research which they claim as immoral and characterize as devaluing human life, much the same as does abortion, drawing a link between the two. This discussion will provide a brief overview of stem cell research and its benefits to society, the debate surrounding the issue and the arguments for continued research. Stem cells are basically the building block cells of a human being which are capable of becoming 210 different types of tissue. Adult stem cells are found in minute numbers within most tissues, but the majority of stem cells can be obtained from the umbilical cord. There are numerous potential sources for stem cells. Embryonic stem cells originate from the inner cell of an early stage embryo. Embryonic germ cells can be collected from fetal tissue at a later stage of development. Adult stem cells can be obtained from mature tissues. “Even after complete maturation of an organism, cells need to be replaced. A good example (of adult stem cells) is blood, but this is true for muscle and other connective tissue as well, and may be true for at least some nervous system cells” (Chapman et al, 1999). The three main objectives given for pursuing stem cell research are obtaining vital scientific information about embryonic development; curing incapacitating ailments such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s and for testing new drugs instead of having to use animals. Stem cell research is also expected to aid victims of stroke, spinal cord injuries, bone diseases and diabetes. The scientific techniques for obtaining stem cells could lead to unparalleled advances and even cures for these and other ailments. It has been substantiated from animal research that stem cells can be differentiated into cells that will behave appropriately in their transplanted location. For example, the transplantation of stem cells following treatments for cancer has found much success for many years. “Experiments such as the transplantation of fetal tissue into the brains of Parkinson’s patients indicate that the expectation that stem cell therapies could provide robust treatments for many human diseases is a reasonable one. It is only through controlled scientific research that the true promise will be understood” (Frankel, 1999). The moral dilemma that surrounds the prohibition of aborted fetuses is the idea of abortion itself. The former Bush administration was very conservative leaning and made it very clear that it was opposed to legal abortions, in at least most circumstances, and transferred that ideology to its prohibition of embryonic stem cell research. The concept of scientific study of the next stage of development, the fetus, which resulted from an abortion, is unthinkable. This ideology of that administration reflected the minority opinion which opposes abortion and also reflects the majority opinion that is opposed to aborted fetuses of consenting parents being used for experimentation. This reality has no basis in reason. Why would those who claim to be ‘pro-choice’ want to waste the aborted tissue? For that matter, why would pro-lifers want to witness what they believe is a living being tossed away in vain? At least its ‘life’ could have meant something to humanity in a very real way. Though president Obama reversed the Bush-era restrictions on this scientific research, conservatives continue to fight this battle in court. Last October, for example, a federal judge temporarily blocked government regulations expanding stem cell research. The suit brought by a Christian group stalled potentially lifesaving research. (Yost, 2010) Whatever moral or political position, the fact is, all these fetuses could have served advance scientific and medical knowledge in immeasurable ways. Those who believe they are taking the moral ground when it comes to the ‘unborn’ are perfectly willing to allow those who are breathing to suffer needlessly without hope of the possibility for quicker cure through the efforts of stem cell research. Abortion laws vary state by state but the vast majority allow for abortions to be performed at least through the second trimester, 24 weeks into the pregnancy. This limitation was derived from the neurological point of view, which conforms to our society’s distinctness for the death as the absence of a cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. This same definition must therefore also define life as there are no alternatives to these two options. The presence of the EEG pattern of a fetus can be detected approximately 27 into weeks into the pregnancy. An embryo is referred to as a fetus at about seven to eight weeks following fertilization. At about four to five weeks, embryonic germ cells, about 2 mm long, are developing (Morowitz & Trefil, 1992). Scientists provide the valid argument that embryos cannot be considered as humans because of their stage of development. Embryonic stem cells are collected from embryos which are four to five days old. In this stage of development, they are called blastocysts and are smaller in diameter than a human hair. When viewed by a microscope, the blastocyst contains fewer than 200 cells and had no features that are recognizable as human nor has the capacity to feel any sensations including pain. An embryo only four or five days old does not yet contain any cells that are dedicated to making up bodily tissues. An embryo this young in a woman’s’ body would not have as yet attached to the uterine wall. Therefore, the viability of the embryo is certainly not assured and is, in fact, unlikely. It can be argued that it could not possess a soul as well, at least not an individual soul. “Since an embryo at this stage has not yet reached the point where it might split in two to become twins, an embryo can’t be thought of as an individual person, some ethicists say, since it may actually become two different people” (Manjoo, 2005). Because abortion is legal the ethical question is not in the status of the fetus as it has already been aborted, but rather the immorality of those who would stand in the way of scientific research that would greatly benefit all of humanity. Religion has historically attempted to keep information from the masses and to thwart scientific research. In this age of communication, science will prevail in at least in some parts of the world. When stem cell research becomes widely accepted, the U.S. will eventually participate fully but will then be well behind the curve of technological and structural systems. This industry will pump money into many economies while the U.S. is catching up. Many people will be presented with the possibility of being treated for horrific diseases in other countries while the U.S. lags behind as its citizens continue to suffer. In the religious community, philosophies are somewhat varied. The Mormon Church is neutral regarding stem cell research although it opposes abortion with the possible exceptions of cases of incest, rape or danger to the mother’s health. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations supports research but only if it entails frozen embryos that remain unused from test-tube baby labs. Many Muslims consider that the most convincing moral argument for using embryos is that it could someday combat dread diseases. Representing Protestants, Conservative and Reform Jews and Unitarians amongst others, The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice encourages unimpeded rights to abortion. The coalition believes the medical potential justifies research that employs the test-tube leftovers or aborted fetuses. The Catholic Church instructs its followers that ‘the life of every human being is to be respected’ and it passionately opposes destroying embryos, whether by abortion or research. Eastern Orthodox and evangelical Protestant leaders generally concur. The California Council of Churches, however, “supports a $3 billion state program that involves stem cell harvesting through destruction of cloned embryos” (Ostling, 2005). U.S. Representative Jim Langevin, a socially conservative Democrat from Rhode Island, usually sides with the pro-life Republican faction of Congress regarding abortion laws, was paralyzed from the waist down due to a gun-related accident as a teenager. “To me, being pro-life also means fighting for policies that will eliminate pain and suffering and help people enjoy longer, healthier lives,” Langevin stated in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. “And to me, support for embryonic stem cell research is entirely consistent with that position. What could be more life-affirming than using what otherwise would be discarded to save, extend, and improve countless lives?” (Manjoo, 2005). Director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Bioethics, Arthur Caplan, suggests that the absurd reasoning that leads some lawmakers to believe embryos should be afforded similar rights as other citizens when deciding matters of public policy leads to absurd outcomes. According to Caplan, “If you treat embryos as ‘real human lives,’ not only would you have to ban In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and stem cell research but you’d also have to ban sex” (Manjoo, 2005). This is because most early-stage pregnancies, described as within a few days after the egg is fertilized, do not progress past that point. Unprotected intercourse produces embryos that are commonly lost without the knowledge of the woman. Up to 40 percent of all embryos are lost even before they can be detected clinically according to the president’s bioethics council. No one, not even the most zealous pro-life proponent laments losing an embryo in this manner. Society has passed no laws protecting four-day-old embryos and physicians do not practice life-saving techniques designed to save lost embryos that result from intercourse. Pro-life groups do not carry signs in protest of the needless ‘death’ of these embryos, even when fertilization clinics throw away frozen embryos. This is because society does not deem embryos to be equal to living individuals even those who, in the case of stem cell research, express that they do. IVF gives infertile people the opportunity to have children. This benefit, the whole of society has determined, outweighs the cost associated with discarding unneeded, frozen embryos. Stem cell research represents a comparable cost benefit scenario. “The cost of destroying embryos that would otherwise have been discarded is outweighed by the chance at treating or curing diseases that afflict tens or hundreds of thousands of people” (Manjoo, 2005). Using embryos that otherwise would have been discarded for the purpose of research is morally sound reasoning especially to those that oppose throwing them away. It gives these tiny masses of cells a purpose in ‘life’ instead of simply being wasted. True morality is on the side of stem cell research proponents rather than those of the ‘moral majority’ who opposes it. Embryonic stem cells possess the ability to restore defective or damaged tissues which would heal or regenerate organs which have been adversely affected by a degenerative disease. Cell therapy has the very real potential to provide new cures for diabetes, cancer, kidney disease, Parkinson’s, macular degeneration, multiple sclerosis and many other kinds of diseases. Cell therapy has also demonstrated a great potential to help repair and regenerate spinal cord injuries which would help paralyzed patients recapture lost body functions. The possibilities are limitless including greatly advancing the human lifespan because aging organs could be replenished. Religious zealots continue in their attempt to slow scientific advancement by advocating dogma over science and reason. Proponents of abortion rights and stem cell research recognize that if the moral status of embryos and fetuses is exclusively a religious matter, it should be kept in the private dominion of faith, not a matter of political debate. The moral majority is morally bankrupt on this issue. Former First lady Nancy Reagan, a conservative Republican, finally got it but why can’t others on the religious right understand that their ‘morals’ are only hurting living, breathing people every day such as Ronald Reagan in the final ten years of his life? Political, not prudent considerations are the cause of the stifling of embryonic stem cell research. However, despite the human health and economic advantages of embryonic stem cell research, the ‘moralists’ of the right wing refuse to give up their flawed reasoning. This is likely the result of refusing to become educated on the issue while employing a neutral, unbiased frame of mind. These are the same people, no doubt, who think that the theory of evolution is a vast liberal conspiracy designed to undermine religion and is a tool of ‘the devil.’ Inevitably, stem cell research will be commonplace and hopefully sooner than later but until then many people will continue to suffer with debilitating diseases and paralysis. Works Cited Chapman, Audrey; Frankel, Mark S.; & Garfinkel, Michele S. Stem Cell Research and Applications: Monitoring the Frontiers of Biomedical Research. (November 1999). American Association for the Advancement of Science and Institute for Civil Society. April 28, 2011 Frankel, Mark. “Stem Cell Research and Applications: Findings and Recommendations.” Stem Cell Research and Applications Scientific, Ethical and Policy Issues. American Association for the Advancement of Science and Institute for Civil Society. (November 1999). April 28, 2011 < http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/stem/findings.htm> Manjoo, Farhad. “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the Stem Cell Debate.” Salon.com. (June 8, 2005). April 28, 2011 Morowitz, H. J. & Trefil, J. S. The Facts of Life: Science and the Abortion Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press. (1992). Ostling, Richard N. “A Balance of Benefits in Stem Cell Debate: Divisions Among Religious Groups Suggest Theological Thicket in Life-or-Life Questions.” Washington Post. (June 4, 2005 p. B09) Yost, Pete. “Obama stem cell regulations temporarily blocked” Durham Herald Sun (October, 2010) April 28, 2011 Read More