Stem Cell Research and Ethical Issues - Essay Example

The discovery, isolation, and culturing of human embryonic stem cells has been described as one of the most significant breakthroughs in biomedicine of the century. The pace of stem cell discovery in recent years is fuelled by newer technologies surfacing every day. This acceleration will probably result in Stem cell therapies gradually becoming commonplace in treating various diseases/disorders. These new technologies however, should be accepted only after weighing their implications- risks and benefits. Researchers, policymakers and the public - have a responsibility to explore the potential effects of stem cell research on lives of a common man so that informed decisions can be made. There are several types of issues to consider as we think about stem cell research. Ethical issues are those that ask us to consider the potential moral outcomes of stem cell technologies, Legal issues require researchers and the public to help policymakers decide whether and how stem cell technologies should be regulated by the government and Social issues involve the impact of stem cell technologies on society as a whole. While stem cells can be derived from aborted fetuses and even adults, the best source for stem cells is the small clump of cells that compose the early zygote only a few days following conception. Stem cells can be extracted from very young human embryos -- typically from surplus frozen embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures at fertility clinics. Therefore, to best investigate the latent possibilities inherent in stem cells, scientists prefer to choose the approximately 100,000 "excess" frozen pre-embryos that are "left over" from earlier IVF attempts. Now, the question arises whether it is ethical to allow the destruction of pre-embryos to obtain stem cells for research that may some day save thousands of lives Whether life for those already existing should be improved at the seeming expense of a possible human life that has just come into being While many ethical issues arise, the key one is whether pre-embryos are included in the prohibition of abortion. The consensus thus far is that it an embryo is not protected by the limitations on abortion until it is implanted in a woman. Nevertheless, many Rabbis oppose the deliberate creation of pre-embryos for the purpose of their destruction, as this would cheapen the value of human life. The halachic process offers fascinating insight into all areas of ethics, including biomedical ethics. Early stem cells have the ability to differentiate into every cell of the human body, potentially forming an entire fetus. However, by manipulating the conditions and controlling cellular differentiation, research has been able create replacement cells and organs, potentially curing illnesses such as diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease. Stem cell is a primitive type of cell that can be coaxed into developing into most of the 220 types of cells found in the human body (e.g. blood cells, heart cells, brain cells, etc). Some researchers regard them as offering the greatest potential for the alleviation of human suffering since the development of antibiotics. Over 100 million Americans and two billion other humans worldwide suffer from diseases that may eventually be treated more effectively with stem cells or even cured. These include heart disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancer. The ultimate promise of stem cell technology would be to combine it with cloning. Take for instance, a patient dying of liver failure whose cell is cloned. Instead of allowing a cloned cell to develop into a fetus, it could be subjected to conditions where it would differentiate into a genetically identical liver. If this liver is allowed to "grow" to maturity, we could offer the patient a liver transplant without the risk of rejection and without the need for anti-rejection drugs. Those who believe that human life begins at conception-and who also regard activated eggs as morally equivalent to human embryos-cannot ethically approve therapeutic cloning research. For them, such research is equivalent to killing a living child in order to harvest its organs for the benefit of others. Some of those who think this way, however, might nonetheless find acceptable research on human stem cells derived from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. They reason, rightly or wrongly, that these embryos are certain to be destroyed and that at least some good might result from using the cells. But therapeutic cloning remains totally unacceptable to such people because it involves the deliberate creation of what they deem to be a human being in order to destroy it. Stem cells can also be obtained from adult tissue, without harm to the subject. Unfortunately, they are difficult to remove and are severely limited in quantity. There has been a consensus among researchers that adult stem cells are limited in usefulness as they can be used to produce only a few of the 220 types of cells in the human body. However, some evidence is emerging that indicates that adult cells may be more flexible than has previously been believed. The consept of destroying an embryo for research purposes, as in embryonic stem cell research enfaces us with a moral issue because it challenges two very highly regarded moral principles- one principle enjoins the prevention or alleviation of suffering, and the other enjoins us to respect the value of human life. As noted, the harvesting and culturing of embryonic stem cells has considerable potential to bring about remarkable potential benefits in the way of alleviating debilitating medical conditions. So, it satisfies the first principle to a very great degree. On the contrary, it is also argued that the harvesting of human embryonic stem cells violates the second principle in that it results in the destruction of human life with value (i.e. human embryos). Accordingly, both principles apparently cannot simultaneously be respected in the case of embryonic stem cell research. In this situation, which principle ought to be given precedence in this conflict situation, remains a dilemma. The ethical problem generated by destructive embryo research calls for a moral calculation-a decision about how the positive value of destructive embryo research is to be weighted, from a moral point of view, in comparison to the negative value (or disvalue) of destroying embryos which will involve: (i) Developing a sound and accurate picture of what the real value is of the benefits of Embryonic research, and (ii) Clarifying what the value of embryos might consist in, and what, if anything, may be one principle enjoins the prevention or alleviation of suffering, and the other enjoins us to respect the value of human life. Assessing the beneficial consequences of embryonic stem cell research is a complex process involving evaluation of hoe realistic the benefit potentials and how they can be compared to different alternatives and combinations. Emphasis is primarily laid upon the medical potential of embryonic stem cell research and cultivation, particularly somatic gene therapy for genetic disorders and the generation of replacement tissues and organs for transplant. The uncertainty about how real the potential benefits are needs to be kept in mind when weighing and evaluating the consequences of embryonic stem cell research. The process of obtaining human eggs leads to one of the most sensitive ethical issues cloning research. In each of her monthly cycles, a woman usually produces only one or two mature eggs. To increase that to a number that can be used in research, she must be given stimulatory medications such as those used in reproductive IVF procedures. In rare cases, these drugs can provoke a so-called hyperstimulation syndrome that can lead to liver damage, kidney failure or stroke. According to some studies, ovulation-stimulating drugs have also been associated with a heightened risk for ovarian cancer. The surgery to retrieve the eggs also carries risks, such as the dangers of general anesthesia and bleeding. Is it ethical to subject a woman to these risks for research purposes If women are offered payment to undergo these risks, might that cause human reproductive material to become viewed as a commodity that can be commercialized The "rightness" of destructive embryonic stem cell research will also depend on the available alternatives, their pros and cons. A research program involving adult stem cells derived from bone marrow, brain and gut, and other tissues concluded that some of these stem cells have a capacity to differentiate into a limited number of different cell types, such as blood cells, muscles and neurones (i.e., they are multipotent), but they have not been shown to be pluripotent (able to differentiate into any cell-type) in the way that embryonic stem cells are. This indicates that adult stem cells offer more limited potential benefits in regenerative medicine and gene therapy. Apart from the ongoing use of immunosuppressant drugs (with its possible serious side effects), two other potential solutions to this immunological limitations have been suggested. The first proposes a 'tissue bank' with a sufficiently large number of different embryonic stem cell types to generate tissue that can be immunologically matched with different recipients. Hall points out, however, that 'this would require a huge number of human embryonic stem cell lines and would be technically difficult and expensive to generate. The second possible way of overcoming the problem of immunological incompatibility is through what has been called 'therapeutic cloning. In this process, the nucleus of a human oocyte or egg is removed and replaced with the nucleus of a cell taken from the body of the intended tissue recipient. The new egg is induced to develop into an embryo, from which immunocompatible stem cells are harvested. The embryo will be a human embryonic clone of the recipient, with all his/her exact genetic characteristics. A number of ethical objections have been expressed to therapeutic cloning, all revolving around the creating of an embryo, and moreover, the creating of an embryo for a use that will destroy it. The benefits of pluripotency of embryonic stem cells in generating immunocompatible tissue, are likely to be possible only at the cost of having to engage in either the morally contentious practice of human (therapeutic) cloning, or the morally contentious practice of using (and destroying) a large number of embryos to create a sufficient range of embryonic stem cell lines for organ banks. It is especially important to note also, that if the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is passed in its current form, and any kind of human cloning, including therapeutic cloning, is prohibited, there will be less opportunity to maximize the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research, and embryonic stem cells will effectively have less of the advantage they would otherwise have over adult stem cells. "The Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 only permits excess ART embryos existing before 5 April 2002 to be used for research purposes in accordance with a licensing regime. It is a fact about those embryos that they would likely expire or succumb anyway. Some philosophers argue that there is a moral difference between acts and omissions, between actively killing something, and passively failing to intervene to stop its death from other causes (when one could have). Their counterparts hold the opinion that it makes sense to opt for the more beneficial embryo research and indeed, some might construe that as a sufficient case for the moral preferability of that option." One strong but minority strand of argument stresses upon the impact that biotechnology has on broader social relationships and argues that that research should be evaluated not only in terms of its effects on the subjects of the experiment but also in terms of its connection with existing patterns of oppression and domination in society. It is relatively uncontroversial to describe embryos as human life (at its very beginnings). It is another thing, however, to describe embryos as persons, or human beings, or potential persons, etc. These descriptions are morally laden because they bear potential implications about what can and cannot be done to embryos from a moral point of view. Some argue that, despite obvious physical differences between developed humans and embryos, the latter should be considered as human beings or persons. One of the more plausible arguments to this effect relies on pointing out that there is no non-arbitrary point in the physical growth continuum between embryo and developed human that counts as a morally significant dividing line. Liberal democracies unanimously agree that individual persons deserve to be respected and honored in a certain humane manner and they have fundamental rights not to have their basic human interests interfered with in certain ways, and most importantly, their interest in the maintenance of their life and bodily integrity. If embryos have the status of persons, then they too will have rights not to be harmed or killed. Works cited list: Primary source: I N F O R M A T I O N A N D RE S E A R C H S E R V I C E S Current Issues Brief No. 5 2002-03 Key Ethical Issues in Embryonic Stem Cell Research Dr Maurice Rickard Social Policy Group 12 November 2002 The Ethical Considerations by Ronald M Green, November 24, 2004. S. Sherwin, No Longer Patient: Feminist ethics and health Care, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1992, pp. 174-75. P. Devine, The Ethics of Homicide, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1978, p. 18. Joel Feinberg, Harm to Others: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law, OUP, Oxford, 1984, p. 33. Ronald Dworkin, Life's Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom, Alfred Knopf, New York, 1993, p. 16. 22. ibid., p. 84. John A. Robertson, 'Ethics and Policy in Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, vol. 9, no. 2, 1999, p. 126. Read More