Is Stem Cell Research Morally Right - Essay Example

Stem Cell Research is Morally Right The benefits to society by the introduction of new medical technologies have been considerable. For example, the introduction of vaccines and antibiotics has significantly improved the well-being of people all over the globe. The science of stem cell treatments, potentially as or more significant than these other innovations, is beginning a new stage of exploration and growth that could be the forerunner of unprecedented cures and therapies. 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 is not shared by those of the religious right or the current presidential administration. 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. I suggest those who support federal funding of stem cell research are positioned on higher moral ground. Stem cells are basically the building block cells of a human being which are capable of becoming different types of tissue. The main objective for pursuing stem cell research is curing incapacitating ailments such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, spinal cord injuries, strokes and other various diseases. 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. The moral dilemma that surrounds the prohibition of aborted fetuses is the idea of abortion itself. The Bush administration has made it very clear that it is opposed to legal abortions, in at least most circumstances, and has transferred this 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 the administration reflects 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. Whatever moral or political position, the fact is, all these fetuses could have served to 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 or even possible cure through the efforts of stem cell research. The Bush administration is aligned with the far right-wing religious sect and has made it very clear that it is opposed to legal abortions, in at least most circumstances, and has transferred this ideology to its prohibition of embryonic stem cell research. When Bush first addressed the stem cell issue, in the first year of his first term as President, he proposed a plan that was not a viable option for either right wing ‘moralists’ or scientists but the issue was promptly abandoned by his administration following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. 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 but will then be well behind the curve of technological and structural systems. This industry will pump money into many foreign economies while the U.S. is catching up. At present, more than half of European countries and others around the world allow for embryonic stem cell research in various degrees. 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. Religious zealots are again attempting 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. Nancy Reagan 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. So as to assuage their base constituency, the Bush administration has opposed this ground-breaking medical science which would benefit all of society. This stance, in addition to hurting the many millions of people who could enjoy healthier lives because of it, also hinders the economy. Other countries will be much further advanced in this science and therefore reap the financial benefits. 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. Where is the morality in that? Who are these people that consider the life of a living human being less important than a four or five day-old embryo? It’s easy for these people to cling to false morals unless it affects them or their family directly. Remember, the Reagan’s did not acknowledge AIDS during the 1980’s for political reasons when this epidemic was ravaging the gay community and likely would also have opposed stem cell research for the same reason. Advocates of stem cell research should do a better job of educating opponents so that government’s funds can be allocated to further this new science. If we, as a country can spend hundreds of billions of dollars on an unnecessary war that benefits no one, we can spend much less on research that will benefit us all. In the religious community, philosophies are somewhat varied. 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. 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. Some lawmakers believe embryos should be afforded similar rights as other citizens, an absurd idea that if made law, would lead to absurd outcomes. If embryos were treated as legal humans, sex would be outlawed. This is because unprotected intercourse produces embryos that are commonly lost without the knowledge of the woman. 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. In vitro fertilization 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. 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. Read More