Excess Embryos and Research - Essay Example

?Excess Embryos and Research Introduction The use of excess embryos from IVF programs for research is a favorable option for me. Based on the utilitarian principles, the final outcomes of research are meant to secure favorable developments in the treatment of various diseases, thereby compensating for the embryos lost during the research process. Under these conditions, I support the use of excess embryos for research in order to establish greater and more encouraging results for humanity. I am aware of the fact that my position on this matter is not supported by other individuals. These individuals believe that using the excess embryos for research violates the rights of the human embryo. Moreover, based on the absolutist principle, all life has value and that it is always wrong to take such life (West, 2005). These individuals also point out that using excess embryos for human research may lead humanity into a slippery slope, where one small step towards an end would lead to other similar actions where bigger and more undesirable consequences become apparent (West, 2005). Discussion In order to understand this discussion better, it is important to consider and define the parameters of IVF. In vitro fertilization refers to the process of the sperm fertilizing the egg outside the human body or in vitro, which in Latin translates to ‘in glass’ (Swain, 2011). Basically, in IVF, the sperm and egg is collected from the woman’s fallopian tubes or uterus, is combined with the semen under laboratory conditions, and then reinserted into the uterus (Swain, 2011). Ovarian hyperstimulation for the retrieval of multiple eggs and the culture and selection of embryos is also included in the process. Most of the time, multiple eggs are fertilized in order to ensure successful fertilization and consequently, successful pregnancies (Swain, 2011). In different countries, there are legal restrictions on the number of embryos which can be reintroduced into the uterus. In these instances, there would likely be numerous excess embryos which would not be used by the clients seeking IVF (Kao, et.al., 2008). From these excess embryos, the issue of utilization has now come about and the question is raised: Should these excess embryos be made available for research purposes? Opponents to the utilization of these embryos for research primarily point out that allowing the use of these embryos would lead humanity into a slippery slope, one which would likely lead to more human rights violated and less value attributed to human life (Dooley, 2003). They argue that where an embryo is given so little value, the value of life itself would likely decrease. The slippery slope argument is based on the argument that where one act is allowed, an avalanche of other consequent acts would likely follow and these consequent acts may not be intended by the original actors (Bongso and Lee, 2010). For example, allowing the use of embryonic cells may later eventually lead to the blatant use of embryonic cells (even those not in excess) for research purposes. For other ethical arguments, allowing the legalization of euthanasia may lead to the unconscionable killing of elderly individuals who do not have adequate health care (Bongso and Lee, 2010). For those who believe in the slippery slope argument, they also point out that allowing the use of excess embryos may lead to the instrumentalization of human life, wherein life is created in order to fill human purposes (Banchoff, 2011). These statements or arguments are not agreeable to me. According to Dettman and Saunders (1985), human embryos cannot be considered as individuals or people, not even as potential human life. Human embryo should be considered as cells and unless they are implanted in the uterus, they are not yet potential life forms (Hinman, 2010). In effect, the embryos cannot be considered human life and must not therefore be attributed with human value. Where there is no human value, there would also not be any devaluation on the embryo (Hinman, 2010). I also believe that the research which would be carried out on the excess embryos would benefit humans and consequently helps increase the value of human life. IVF embryos have an importance to human research because stem cells can be extracted from these embryos. These stem cells are cells which can later be designated into various body cells or pluripotent cells like those found in the heart, the kidneys, even the brain (Takahashi and Yamanaka, 2005). These cells also undergo mitosis and in the process also regenerate. They also have a faster rate of division, often ensuring the easier generation of cells for various therapies (Takahashi and Yamanaka, 2005). Adult stem cells often divide at slower rates, often decreasing their utility for immediate treatment. Embryonic stem cells on the other hand have a higher degree of plasticity, helping ensure treatment for a wider range of diseases including Leukemia and Huntington’s disease (Takahashi and Yamanaka, 2005). The utilitarian theory would consider the greater good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is based on the concept laid out by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill where these theories argue that man should maximize the good and should capitalize on bringing about the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Crisp, 1997). In these instances, these theorists also argue that the happiness of all people have equal weight and what is good for one must have equal weight to what is good for another. This current issue can be viewed in two ways under utilitarian principles (Crisp, 1997). Firstly, the excess embryos may be viewed as having a bigger value in terms of their potential benefits in terms of the research benefits they can bring to medicine (Gill, 2006). Secondly, evaluating consequences is a significant element of the utilitarian theory and some may argue that the negative ethical impact of embryo destruction is outweighed by the positive benefits embryonic research can bring to medicine and to human life (Gill, 2006). I believe that the personal as well as the economic impact of degenerative and incurable diseases has a greater burden on the human race. Understandably, others may argue that using excess IVF embryos for research would likely violate human rights. However, in applying the utilitarian theory, the greater sin or error would be in ceasing research and allowing humans to needlessly suffer the pain and debilitation of their disease when there are options actually available to ease their burdens (Schofield, 2006). Opponents of excess IVF use point out that there are other options in medical science which can be considered. They argue that adult stem cells can be used from bone marrows of healthy adult patients and used in much the same way as embryonic stem cells (Turksen, 2004). Although, there is indeed logic to this argument, I do not believe such logic can be given much support because of the fact that using adult stem cells has major limitations (Turksen, 2004). These adult cells are often limited in number and according to the NIH (in CNN.com, 2001) are “difficult to isolate and purify, and their numbers may decrease with age”. These adult stem cells are also not adequate alternatives because their processing for final use is often prolonged and the very point of their use would be lost on patients whose diseases are quickly causing the debilitation of their body (CNN.com, 2001). Under these conditions, these adult stem cells cannot be considered logical options over embryonic stem cells. I believe that stem cell research is also supported by the consequentialist views where the end basically justifies the means (Feinberg and Feinberg, 2010). Under these conditions, the ends being sought would be the treatment of humans from debilitating and life-threatening diseases such as leukemia or Huntington’s Diseases. The means to be used would be the utilization of excess embryos for research, in some cases, the destruction of these embryos during research (Feinberg and Feinberg, 2010). This view is based on end-results where the actors evaluate the ends achieved, not the how or the ways such decision is reached. Based on this perspective, the destruction of the excess embryo does not matter in the grander scheme of things where the ends reached include the improved health and life quality for most humans. The issue being discussed herein is full of complications and is wrought with various questions. Although the consequentialist theory seems to provide a simplistic means of choice resolution, the issue is not at all that simple because it straddles various beliefs, opinions, and suffers from limited medical research and resource (Hug, 2010). The primary issue in this case would still be on the status of the human embryo – whether it should be considered a life, one entitled to human rights. I personally believe that without implantation, the embryo must not be attributed human rights and life. I respect the opinions of others who believe otherwise. Nevertheless, there are numerous variables and theories as presented above which have helped establish my own opinion on this subject matter. It is also important to note that the personal choices of individuals coming in for IVF processes must be considered, supporting their choices on whether or not to donate their excess embryos for research. These couples may often opt to donate their excess embryos for other couples or have their embryos frozen for future use. Under these conditions, the more important and basic human right – the right to choose – can be respected and protected. Conclusion Based on the above discussion, it is important to note that both sides of the argument do have logical and philosophical support. On one side, opponents of the use of excess embryo for research argue that using excess embryo would likely lead the human race in a path towards a slippery slope, where one action would lead to another action and the ends are not intended or even desired. They also argue that there are better and more ethical options which can be taken in order to allow for the use of stem cells for the advancement of medicine. However, these reasons do not sufficiently deter me from supporting the use of excess embryos for medical research. Based on the utilitarian principle, the use of the embryo would support a larger group of people. It serves a more noble purpose for the preservation of life and advancement of the medical practice. The consequentialist principle also supports my position on this argument as it argues that actions should be allowed for as long as the ends justify the means. For the better end of establishing improved conditions for humans, the means by which such end is reached must be allowed. I also support the importance of choice for humans – allowing clients using IVF to choose whether to donate their excess embryo for research or to preserve these for their future use. Under these conditions, the basic human right of choice is protected and both interests occupying the two sides in this issue may be appeased in some way. References Banchoff, T., 2011. Embryo politics: ethics and policy in Atlantic democracies. New York: Cornell University Press. Bongso, A. and Lee, E., 2010. Stem Cells: From Bench to Bedside. California: World Scientific. CNN.com., 2001. Adult stem cells or embryonic? Scientists differ [online]. Available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/08/09/stem.cell.alternative/ [Accessed 17 August 2012]. Crisp, R., 1997. Mill on utilitarianism. London: Routledge. Dettman, C., and Saunders, D., 1985. Infertility and IVF. Australia: Penguin Books Dooley, D., 2003. Ethics of new reproductive technologies: cases and questions. London: Berghahn Books. Feinberg, J. and Feinberg, P., 2010. Ethics for a brave new world. London: Crossway. Gill, M., 2006. The British moralists on human nature and the birth of secular ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hinman, L., 2010. Utilitarianism. University of San Diego [online]. Available at: http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Presentations/AppliedEthics/Theory/Utilitarianism.pdf [Accessed 17 August 2012]. Hug, K., 2010. Translational stem cell research: issues beyond the debate on the moral status of the human embryo. London: Springer. Kao, C., Chuang, C., Chen, C., and Kuo, H., 2008. Human pluripotent stem cells: Current status and future perspectives. The Chinese Journal of Physiology, 51 (4): 214–25. Schofield, P., 2006. Utility and democracy: the political thought of Jeremy Bentham. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, J., and Smith, G., 2011. Advances in embryo culture platforms: novel approaches to improve preimplantation embryo development through modifications of the microenvironment. Hum. Reprod. Update, 17 (4): 541–57. Takahashi, K. and Yamanaka, S., 2006. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell, 126 (4): 663–676. Turksen, K., 2004. Adult stem cells. London: Humana Press. West, M., 2005. The ethics of genetic engineering. USA: Thomson Gale Read More