One of the Gravest Moral and Ethical Issues - Essay Example

Stem Cell Debate XX English 122 Anna Hopson September 21,2009 One of the gravest moral and ethical issues facing people today is that of stem cell research. The two sides of this debate are very polarized, neither brooking any opposition. The positions are so seriously engrained and so emotional, that it can be very difficult reason things out. Indeed, the debate is very similar to abortion argument that centres on the issue of whether a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy and what period of the pregnancy an abortion can be legally or morally acceptable. The stem cell research debate bring up similar philosophical and moral issues such as what constitutes life, when does life begin, and how is life created. These questions are fundamental to our social values and say a lot about the way we think about life. Indeed, I often think about such things. But one important difference between stem cells and abortion is that stem cells have the possibility of extending and improving life. Unlike the abortion issue, the stem cell issue is not a zero-sum gain. Whether or not you believe using an embryonic stem cell for research purposes is destroying a potential life, you must admit that it is opening up the possibility for someone else to live longer or better. That makes this issue more nuanced. Indeed, when all the fact are in about stem cells, it is very hard for someone to believe research involving them should be banned. Stem cells offer some of the substantial and important possibilities in the fields of medical science open to us today. I believe we must seize this opportunity. The world today is more complicated than ever. In part this is because we know more about it than ever before and technology has dramatically shaped our world views. Certain moral questions have exploded in recent years because of the way technology is changing the moral dimensions of our lives. We can now see foetuses in the womb using ultrasound technology and can tell a lot about them and their health early on. We now know that there are certain cells inside the body—called stem cells—that are effectively the building blocks for many different cells. They can become a fetus, they can become a brain cell, or, for example, they can become a skin cell. With the right type of manipulation—something scientists are becoming increasingly proficient at—it may be possible for many previously incurable diseases to be dealt with. There are also great possibilities involving the generation of organs for transplant, among a myriad of other good news stories. Many degenerative diseases—diseases that involve cells slowly falling apart such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s—diseases that have a huge socio-economic impact in countries around the world and affect millions of people—may be reversed using the regenerative properties unlocked by stem cell research (Peters, 2007, p. 2). The very idea that these horrible diseases could be cured by something as simple as a cell in a petri dish is very exciting. No one is talking about killing babies or performing more abortions in order to accomplish this goal. Stem cells could possible become foetuses and they could possible become something else. This simple possibility is not enough to restrain and reduce such hugely important scientific research. Even from a religious point of view it would be very strange for God to give us the ability to learn so much about the building blocks of the human body if he didn’t want us to use this knowledge to try to help people live better and healthier lives free from horrible diseases. The strange thing about this debate is not the arguments on both sides, but how quickly it became political. Indeed, I think politics has distorted this issue very badly over the last few years. It is a sad situation. A large part of it happens in the United States—where religion and politics are more closely aligned in the public sphere than in other countries. Much of the research was going along quite promisingly before the election of George W. Bush in 2000. Following his inauguration there was a lot less federal money available for this kind of research, and many of the scientists involved in this enterprise shifted their attentions to countries that were less restrictive such as Canada and other nations in the European Union where the governments were more supportive of this process. As this journalists writes, the debate in the United States over stem cells was closely tied to political issues: In political terms, however, the ascension has been less smooth. At the heart of the stem cell debate is a battle over abortion — but with a twist. Yes, these are cells from embryos. And according to the religious orthodoxy, an embryo is life. Indeed, some pro-life advocates have likened using stem cells for research to what Nazi doctors did during World War II. But these cells also hold great promise for millions of ailing patients and their families. Moreover, many of the embryos would otherwise be unceremoniously discarded. The political stakes are high, and almost everyone involved in the debate has been obliged to reevaluate their position (Reaves, 2001). These opponents believe that human life in all of its forms is inviolable. Just as in the abortion debate they are certain that life begins the moment a female egg is fertilized and the process of life begins. For them, any interference with this process is unacceptable. These organizations—tied to pro life groups—have a lot of money at their disposal and have been able to powerfully influence the debate through lobbying various government members. What these individuals fail to realize is that the cells in question are in labs and are most certainly not viable to begin with. Most of the cells being used for experiments have no chance of becoming life as we know it. Indeed, this fact alone is enough to convince many pro-life individuals that stem cell research is important and should not be stopped. There are conservative members of the U.S. Senate who support such research and are vocal about their support. But the debate has moved on from these critics. Indeed, it has left them in the dust. New developments allow stem cells to be created from cells other than embryos. [T]hree years ago Shinya Yamanaka, of Kyoto University in Japan, figured out how to return adult mouse cells to an embryoniclike state in a process that never involved an actual embryo. He found that using a virus to deliver genes for just four specific proteins to the nucleus of an adult cell could give it the ability to differentiate into a wide variety of cell types, just like the stem cells derived from embryos. Those proteins, typically found in developing embryos, appear to turn other genes on and off in a pattern characteristic of embryonic rather than adult cells (Gravitz, 2009). These was a huge step, and in many ways has concluded the debate. It really helped me to make up my mind regarding the debate over stem cells. I am more convinced than ever that they offer a very bright future to people who are suffering from incurable diseases. With the election of Barack Hussein Obama in 2008, the United States has the chance to move forward on the stem cell research debate and begin to do more groundbreaking research. A couple of months after taking office, Obama reversed some of George W. Bush’s restrictions and put in place new regulations. According to this newspaper: The new regulations would permit federal support for research with stem cell lines derived from embryos that are created, but not used, for fertility treatments. There are hundreds of thousands of such excess embryos in storage, most scheduled for eventual destruction regardless of scientists activities. At the same time, federal support would not be permitted for work with stem cell lines derived from embryos created with cloning techniques - if any are ever successfully produced (Reynolds, 2009). This is all good news for those who suffer from degenerative diseases and are desperately searching for a cure. Debates over the building blocks of life are bound to be emotional. It is not hard to see why people take such things so personally. Indeed we face many new moral debates as technology allows us to alter our biological destiny. This is all a great opportunity to help people, but just because stem cells are useful does not mean we should jump aboard every new bandwagon as it comes along. Cloning for example can offer huge problems. We must carefully examine the evidence at issues at hand before deciding whether we should pursue a new form of scientific research or avoid it altogether. Works consulted Gravitz, L.. (2009, July). Medicines New Toolbox. Technology Review, 112(4), 40-43. Peters, Ted. (2007). The Stem Cell Debate. New York: Fortress Press. Reaves, Jessica. (2001, 11 July). The Great Debate Over Stem Cells. Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,167245,00.html Reynolds, Jessie. (2009, 27 April). Obama Cools the Stem Cell Debate. San Francisco Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/26/EDVN178JTD.DTL Read More