Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research should be Legalised - Essay Example

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research should be Legalised Introduction Though bioethical views are important in influencing global opinions, the moral arguments disapproving the legalization and funding of scientific research are unsubstantiated and deceiving. After the isolation of embryonic stem cell in 1998, stem cell research scientists presumed they had found a solution to several underlying medical problems that had been a mystery for long. Little did they know that people using misleading points of view would oppose the unearthing leading to restrictive measures and withholding of government funds for this project. Stem cells are progenitor cells found in the human body that are capable of developing into any type of cells, tissue, or organ. Stem cell research on the other hand is a research that has been going on for quite some time in which scientist obtains stem cells from the adult tissues such as bone marrow or from embryos. The stem cells are then utilized in growing new tissues or organs within the laboratory that are used for transplant purposes. Most people support harvesting of stem cell from adults. However, majority of people are opposed to embryonic stem cell research in which researchers make use of embryos to obtain the stem cells. This paper focuses on why embryonic stem cell research should not only be legalized but also funded by the federal government. Embryonic stem research is one of the greatest breakthroughs in stem cell research. This is because it enhanced advancement of the stem cell research and promises a cure to several degenerative diseases currently considered incurable. The research entails obtaining stem cell from human embryos and using them in the laboratory to produce tissues and organs. Prior to this breakthrough, research scientists were using adult stem cell, which were multipotent, meaning they could only develop into limited types of cell. Conversely, embryonic stem cells are capable of differentiating into almost all cell types and are said to be pluripotent. Embryonic stem cells are considered more superior than the adult stem cell and are thus preferred for research purposes. The issue on whether to legalize stem cell research have been ongoing for quite some time particularly over the last decade. Currently, adult stem cells are used to obtain tissue for treatment purposes. However, the inability of adult stem cells to develop into some tissues limits their use in treatment of generative and genetically inherited diseases. The pluripotent trait of embryonic stem cells enables scientists to use them to generate any type of tissue or organ. The study of embryonic stem cell is also a source of information on correction and treatment of hereditary diseases prior to birth. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research argue that harvesting of embryonic stem cell entails killing. However, other sources of stem cell such as aborted embryos are available. Since abortion is legal in United States, the aborted embryos are discarded while they could be used in productive embryonic stem cell research. In addition, most embryos used for embryonic stem cell research are cultured in the laboratory. In vitro fertilisation only requires an egg and sperm donors. In rare cases, the research may require use of blastocysts removed from a woman’s womb. However, such cases are negligible and not adequate to discontinue a promising research such as in case of embryonic stem cell. If the government funded the research, scientist would expand in vitro fertilisation technologies to obtain embryos for the research. The moral argument that the research involves killing embryos is thus not a reason enough to bar legalization of embryonic stem cell research (Forman, MacDonald 30-36). Another objection to embryonic stem cell research, which is posed by pro lifers, is the claim that using in vitro fertilization to obtain embryos for the research is morally wrong. They argue that it is immoral to create life and then destroy it. Even if embryos could be considered as morally human, which they are not, embryonic stem cell would still be a worthy cause since a single embryo can be used to save several lives since it is endowed with numerous cells (Monroe, Miller and Tobis 115-122). Another unambiguous issue is the belief that blastocysts are human thus using them for research entails killing. On the contrary, blastocysts are not morally human since they lack rationality, empathy, and sentience. That is why abortion is legal since the mother is empowered to make the decision on whether to retain the embryo until birth. In case of embryonic stem cell research, mothers should be allowed to decide whether they could donate embryos for the research purposes in the few cases that may require use of embryos from a woman’s womb. Most couple end up procuring abortion in cases when the women gets pregnant and they feel that do not need another child. It is thus crucial that the government legalises embryonic stem cell research so that such couple can help by donating the unwanted embryos (Peters, Lebacqz, and Bennett 22-25). Embryonic stem cell researchers hope that they will be in a position to get a cure for diseases such as Parkinson’s, diabetes, leukaemia, other cancer, and many other diseases caused by defective genes or cells. These diseases have been a nuisance as there was no cure for these conditions. Getting a solution to these diseases will be a milestone in the field of medicine since these diseases results in high motility and morbidity throughout the world. (Monroe, Miller and Tobis, 62-63). To emphasize on the seriousness of the illnessess that scientists are attempting to cure, I will give a brief analysis of the motality and mobidity resulting from these conditions. Diabetes is one of the conditions whose cure might be found through embryonic stem cell research. Diabetes kills about 500,000 people per year within United States. Alzheimer’s is another condition that kills the brain cell of infected persons resulting in loss of memory thus the patients are unable to live a normal life. Parkinson is an additional condition resulting in high mobidity in united States. Other life threatening conditions that reseachers in stem cell research hope to resolve include treatment of severe burns and scars, as well as spinal cord injuries. The treatment to above conditions can not be identified using adult stem cell since they are less versatile compared to embryonic stem cell (Peters, Lebacqz, and Bennett 18-22; Forman, MacDonald 22). Another opposition against stem cell reseach is the supposition that the research might not be successsful thus might lead to waste of taxpayers money. This argument is void since there is no way we can realize the benefit of any deed by doing nothing. Legalizing stem cell reseach will actually encourage several organizations and institutions to come on board and help fund the research thus reduce the burden on the taxpayers and still reap the benefits of the research. Even without government funding, the reseach has already revealed how beneficial it could be since some advancement in treatment of leukemia have already been made. Stem cell researchers have by now identified some of the causes of leukemia and how they can be taken care of. Attempts to find the cure for multiple sclerosis by studying embryonic stem cell are underway. The list of solution that could be attained through stem cell reseach are several and many more could be established if the reseach was legalized and funded adequately (Forman, MacDonald 22). The opponents of embryonic stem cell are puzzled by the number of untreatable diseases that cause numerous deaths. It is thus hypocritical to obstruct embryonic stem cell research, which promises to offer a solution to these diseases. If the opponents were in actual fact concerned with preserving life, they would be moved by the many suffering patients with diseases such as cancer and consent that embryonic stem cell legalisation is meaningful (Peters, Lebacqz, and Bennett 116-119). Another argument put forward by opposers of embryonic stem cell research is the claim that the practise is unethical since the embryo does not give its consent. This is ambigous since the same people are supportive of medical procedures such as pediatric organ transplant ,which is also done without the consent of the infant. In pediatric organ transplant, the parent consent is enough. This should be the same case in embryonic stem cell research, if the mother consents to the use of the embryo, then the researchers should be given a legal go ahead to use the embryo’s for research. It is clear that opponents of embryonic stem cell are not actually fascinated with preserving life, since they have opposed other alternatives of obtaining embryos. Such substitutes include therapeutic cloning, which is still a controversial issue. Therapeutic cloning entails use of genetic materials to make copies of individuals. Attempts to clone human being to obtain embryos have been criticized by those who call themselve human life promoters. If promoting human life entails letting our fellow brother and sister suffer and die of ailments that can be cured through research, then the word promote has fully lost its meaning (Forman, MacDonald 70.) In conclusion, while the ethical and moral issues condemning stem research could be right in some way, they are not sufficient to prevent embryonic stem cell research. It is worth considering the many answers that success in stem cell research will bring about. Some scientists might exploit the research for personal benefits but is worth to keep in mind the fact that even the visibility of the silver lining is enhanced by dark clouds. Works Cited Forman, MacDonald. Stem Cell Research. Minnesota: ABDO, 2007. Print. Monroe, Kristen, Ronald Miller and Jerome Tobis. Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical, and Political Issues. California: University of California Press 2008. Print. Peters, Lebacqz, and Bennett Gaymon. Sacred cells?: why Christians should support stem cell Research. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008. Print. Read More