Stem Cell Research - Essay Example

Ethics and Stem Cell Research Stem cell research poses very difficult ethical problems, mainly because of the conflicting values that are attached to the notion of good: is it good to consider the greatest beneficial consequences for the greatest number, or is it good to always consider only the intrinsic value of specific acts? In this paper, the author outlines the general arguments in favor of, and against, stem cell research, and argues finally that certain areas of the research are morally unjustifiable.

In The Ethics of Stem Cell Research, stem cells are defined as “undifferentiated, primitive cells with the ability both to multiply and to differentiate into specific kinds of cells” (StemCells.ca). This is precisely what makes them so promising: the ability and the developing technology to regenerate much-needed body parts. What makes stem cell research so problematic however is the fact that embryonic stem cells, those that come from human fetal tissue, are the best source of stem cells.

More significantly, the embryo is destroyed when stem cells are harvested. On the other hand, there are good arguments in favor of stem cell research. Primary is the undeniable need for human organs, a need that is not met by simply relying on organ donation. Other sources for organs are needed. Animal-to-human transplants are highly problematic both scientifically and ethically, and hence cannot be the preferred solution. The shortage for human organs makes underhanded organ sales in the black market profitable and widespread.

Further, there are patients who are suffering from neurological conditions that can be helped greatly by regenerative technology. If the above can be addressed using donated fetal tissue, then there is a strong argument in favor of stem cell research because of the potential for promoting the greatest good for the greatest number. It should be noted however, that there are also strong moral reasons for arguing against stem cell research. The primary reason is the seeming devaluation of human life as indicated by the term “harvest”, in itself a loaded term, signifying an act that turns a human embryo into a commodity.

Second, there is a significant degree of moral reprehensibility in the act of manipulating an entity that is already a potential human being, treating it as a means to achieve other ends. These two premises harp on the notion of intrinsic value, that certain acts have inherent moral worth, as opposed to the aforementioned argument in favor of stem cell research that focuses on the projected beneficial consequences of continuing the research. In answer to this consequentialist stance, a third premise can be given against it, one that insists on the potential for a moral slippery slope should the technology for stem cells and regenerative technology be pursued without restraint.

It can be argued that having the technology to literally form anything that can be formed from stem cells does not justify the potential for other moral issues to take shape as a result. In other words, pushing through with the research as it stands will lead to other, perhaps more serious, moral problems involving the thin line between what is morally allowable and what is morally unjustifiable. This issue does not even begin to consider the problem of the moral status of the destroyed embryo, or the accountability of potential clones.

President G. W. Bush, in his decision to fund the research only of existing stem cell lines and not new ones, tried to step between the two horns of the dilemma, so to speak. This could be seen as a prudent decision, but the justifications are problematic. In arguing that the research might as well continue with the existing lines because 1) “They were created from embryos that have already been de­stroyed,” and, 2) “where the life and death decision has already been made.”(Bush), the President betrays a lack of moral justification and instead demonstrates the pragmatic viewpoint of this western nation.

This position is criticized as being morally reprehensible, simply because as C. Ben Mitchell states, these cells are “morally tainted and any benefits from research on those cells will be ill-gotten gain” (2001). In conclusion, the author believes that the argument in favor of stem cell research is morally unjustifiable as it stands. However, because of the great promise that this technology presents in terms of the potential for great benefit, the issue remains problematic. What is made clear is that when man begins to practice increasingly invasive and aggressive intrusion into his natural conditions, moral problems not to mention physiological ones, begin to arise.

If this is not addressed early, this will inevitable lead to more serious moral dilemmas, possibly ones that man can no longer handle.Works CitedBush, George. "Remarks of the President on Stem Cell Research." United States. 9 August 2001.Mitchell, C. Ben. "The President Should Have Consulted Solomon." The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. 11 August 2001. 25 Aug 2006 ."The Ethics of Stem Cell Research." StemCells.ca. Ethicsweb.ca. 25 Aug 2006 .